







































American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

1 | P a g e  

DETERMINANTS OF LABOR MIGRATION FROM EGYPT: AN IN-
DEPTH EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS 

 
 
 

Dr. Eva M. Schmidt and Prof. Markus H. Müller 
Faculty of Mathematics and Economics, University of Ulm, Germany 

 
Abstract: International labor migration is a multifaceted and evolving phenomenon in the 
contemporary globalized world. The forces of globalization, driven by advancements in technology, 
information dissemination, business expansion, and education, have transcended traditional political 
and geographical boundaries. However, migration itself is not a recent development; it has been a 
persistent human endeavor driven by economic, technological, and social factors. These factors have 
prompted individuals to seek improved living conditions by relocating within or across geographic 
regions and even across international borders. 
This paper explores the intricate dynamics of labor migration, drawing on a wealth of previous 
studies that have examined migration patterns and behavior within developing countries. The 
analysis encompasses both macro and micro perspectives. At the macro level, the research delves into 
the determinants of international migration flows, considering factors such as wage differentials, 
unemployment rates, destination country GDP, and geographical distance between sending and 
receiving countries. In contrast, the micro-level analysis investigates individual and household 
characteristics that influence migration decisions, including income, gender, family status, race, 
poverty status, educational attainment, assets, marital status, and access to credit. 
Through a comprehensive examination of these factors, this study contributes to a deeper 
understanding of the intricate tapestry of international labor migration, shedding light on both 
macro-level trends and micro-level determinants. 
Keywords: Labor Migration, Globalization, Macro Analysis, Micro Analysis, Migration Patterns. 
 
1. Introduction  
International labor migration is a growing force that is becoming more complex and dynamic in today‟s 
globalizing world. Globalization has become a common name in the world today as technology, 
information, businesses and education expands beyond the borders of politics and geography (Adams 
& Page, 2005). Still, migration is not a recent phenomenon; people have always migrated in search of 
food, shelter and fortune, but over the years, migration has undergone numerous changes depending 
on various economic, technological and social factors. These factors have encouraged people to move 
from one geographical area to another, from even one country to another, in search of better living 
conditions (Postelnicu, 2012).  
Several previous studies have been conducted to study behavior and migration trends of the labor force 
in developing countries. The study of migration could be tackled from a macro or a micro perspective. 
Macro-level analysis is concerned with explaining trends and flows of international migration using 
aggregate country-wide (Davanzo, 1980). For example, Ortega and Peri (2009) attributed flows of 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

2 | P a g e  

international migration to wage differentials between receiving and sending countries, Bukenya, 
Schaeffer, and Gebremedhin (2003) attributed the number of international migrants to unemployment 
differentials in different counties, Mayda (2010) related migration to the destination country‟s GDP, 
and Greenwood, Ladman, and Siegel (1981) explained international migration by the distance between 
sending and receiving countries.  
Micro-level analysis is concerned with understanding individual or household characteristics that affect 
the decision to migrate (Davanzo, 1980). For example, Cushing (1993) attributed the migration decision 
to the individual‟s income group, gender and family status, Kaluzny (1975) used race and poverty 
status, and several other studies such as Mincer (1971), Polachek and Horvath (1977), and Arenas, 
Conroy, and Nobles (2009) explore the relationship between individual or household characteristics, 
such as age, gender, educational attainment, assets, marital status and access to credit, and migration 
decisions.  
This research tackles migration from a micro-level perspective with the purpose of identifying the 
factors that affect and determine international migration and return decisions among the labor force. 
The study analyzes migration from the perspective of the source country (Egypt) and specifically 
focuses on temporary and return migration. The aim is to understand the characteristics that influence 
individuals‟ decision to migrate and then distinguish between the characteristics of those who migrated 
and eventually returned to Egypt compared to those who remain abroad.  
The clear understanding of such factors and their effect on migration decisions could play an important 
role in the socio-economic progress of Egypt, especially that a survey conducted by Egypt‟s Central 
Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS, 2014) showed that 17% of Egyptian youth want 
to live abroad. Considering the current and continuing economic transition in Egypt, identifying the 
factors influencing Egyptians‟ decision to emigrate/return and noting how those factors change over 
time could provide insights into the characteristics of potential future migrants and so aid in managing 
the Egyptian labor market more efficiently.  
The paper is divided in to four chapters. The first chapter is a review of the literature on forms of 
migration and a description of Egypt‟s migration history and past trends. The second chapter covers 
the methodology and data used to analyze Egyptian migration. The third chapter shows the results of 
the study with a detailed description of Egyptian migrants‟ characteristics, determinants of the 
migration decision, and determinants of the return decision. The final chapter covers the conclusion of 
the research with recommendations for future research possibilities.    
2. Migration Overview  
Migration refers to the movement of individuals from one geographic location to another for various 
reasons, most prominent of which is the search for better living conditions (Özden and Schiff, 2006; 
Hagenzanker, 2008). In 1932, Nobel Prize holder John Hicks proposed that “differences in net 
economic advantages, chiefly differences in wages, are the main causes of migration.” Practically all 
modern analysis of migration decisions uses this hypothesis as a starting point, where migration is 
viewed as a consequence of a utilitymaximizing choice (Borjas, 2012). Workers calculate the value and 
cost of employment opportunities available in alternative labor markets and choose whichever option 
maximizes their earnings (Gaston & Nelson, 2013).  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

3 | P a g e  

As new economic opportunities arise, the number of those who leave their place of origin in search of 
better opportunities increases. In 2015, migrants constituted 3.9% of the total global population aged 
15 years and above (ILO, 2015) and according to the International Organization for Migration (2010), 
if migration flows continue to increase at the same pace as the last 20 years, the total number of 
migrants worldwide by 2050 will slightly exceed 405 million as compared to 214 million in 2010.  
Migration occurs at a variety of scales, one of which is location, which determines whether migration is 
internal or international. Internal migration refers to the movement of individuals within a country 
without crossing its external borders. The most common form of internal migration is rural-urban 
migration however the magnitude and patterns of such movement is poorly documented where data 
collection methods are not thorough or not published with sufficient details (Van Der Gaag & Van 
Wissen, 2008). That is why this research focuses on international migration, which refers to the 
external movement of individuals from their home country to a foreign country in search of a better life 
(Adams & Page, 2005). Such vast movement of people across international boundaries has economic, 
social, and cultural implications in both origin and destination countries (Özden and Schiff, 2006) and 
so is the main focus of this study.  
The nature of the migration decision distinguishes between involuntary and economic migration. Some 
forms of international migration could be involuntary, such as that of refugees and asylum seekers, 
typically to flee military conflicts, civil wars, political turmoil, and ethnic and religious repression 
(Özden & Schiff, 2006). The migration decision in this case is determined by circumstances external to 
the individual that forced the move however, the term migrant is usually understood to refer to cases 
where the decision to migrate is taken freely by the individual for personal convenience (Vogler & Rotte, 
1998). In this case, the decision to migrate is viewed as an economic choice, which is the focus of this 
paper. Economic migration refers to the transfer of some factors of production, namely labor, from one 
geographical location to another (Gaston & Nelson, 2013). There is a great deal of mobility in labor 
markets around the world driven by workers‟ need to improve their economic situation and firms‟ 
desire to hire more productive and skilled labor (Borjas, 2012).  
Finally, the duration the migrant intends to spend abroad determines whether migration is temporary 
or permanent. Permanent migration refers to the movement of a national to a foreign country for an 
unlimited period of time. It is viewed as a single transition that involves a lasting relocation of migrants 
to a new place of residence with no intention to return to their country of origin.   
That is why such permanent change of residence usually involves the movement of the entire household 
(Bell & Ward, 2000; Longino, Marshall, Mullins, & Tucker, 1991). As for temporary migration, which 
is the main focus of this study, it refers to the movement of a national to a foreign country for a set 
duration which is limited to the time required to achieve the goal the individual migrated to fulfill 
(Piper, 2009; Porumbescu, 2015).  
One of the main goals of temporary migration is saving for future consumption, which is why a lot of 
migrants return to their country of origin despite higher earnings in the destination country. Hill (1987) 
and Djajić and Milbourne (1988) attribute return migration to a preference for consumption in the 
country of origin; where individuals find it more satisfactory to consume goods at home rather than at 
the destination country. So, temporary migration is viewed as a means to accumulate sufficient savings 
abroad in order to finance higher and more enjoyable consumption at home (Dustmann & Görlach, 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

4 | P a g e  

2016; Lucas, 2008). Another reason for temporary migration could be the high purchasing power of 
the destination country‟s currency, which, from the migrant‟s perspective, makes price levels lower in 
the country of origin. Thus, by saving in the destination country‟s currency, migrants can increase their 
consumption upon their return due to the higher purchasing power of their savings even if earnings 
were the same in both origin and destination countries( Dustmann, 1995; Dustmann & Görlach, 2016).  
Human capital accumulation also acts as a motive for temporary migration, especially if skills are scarce 
in the country of origin. In this situation, high wages abroad initially attract migrants however as skills 
accumulate, migrants have an incentive to return as their newly acquired skills will be met with a higher 
rate of return at home (Borjas & Bratsberg, 1996; Dustmann & Görlach, 2016). This is especially 
prevalent when skills can be acquired faster in the destination country than in the country of origin. In 
this case, skills and knowledge that are more valuable at home can be acquired easily abroad due to the 
exposure to advanced technology and highly skilled colleagues in the destination country. Thus, 
migrants increase their earnings potential in their skills-scarce countries of origin by migrating 
temporarily and so raising their level of human capital (Dustmann, Fadlon, & Weiss, 2011; Dustmann 
& Görlach, 2016).  
Temporary migrants are often referred to as Guest Workers who are employed in a foreign country for 
a limited period of time that depends on fulfilling specific jobs. They mostly migrate individually, 
unaccompanied by their families and work in fields such as financial services, teaching, construction or 
seasonal agriculture (Freeman, 2006; Porumbescu, 2015). In most cases, the length of stay is not 
determined by the migrant, but depends on the type of work contract and the economic conditions of 
the host country (Dustmann & Görlach, 2016). However, some countries, namely Gulf Cooperation 
Council states, allow migrants to renew/terminate their work permits, provided the request is 
supported by the employer (Djajić & Vinogradova, 2015).   
3. Egyptian Migration 
Egypt is one of the world‟s top emigrating countries, with nearly 10% of the labor force living abroad 
(Wahba, 2015). Most Egyptian migrants have chosen neighboring Arab countries as their destinations 
which is why migration in Egypt can be largely attributed to changing international conditions and 
labor market needs in the Arab region (Zohry, 2007). Table 1 demonstrates the share of Egyptian 
migrants in top destination countries over time.  
Table 1: Total Migrants’ Destination Countries over Migration Phases  

  
Phase 1: 
Expansion  
(1974-1989)  

Phase 2: 
Deterioration (1990-
2003)  

Phase 3: 
Recent 
(2004-2012)  

Total 
Observations  

521  554  824  

Destination        

Saudi Arabia  0.17  0.38  0.40  

Jordan  0.12  0.16  0.14  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

5 | P a g e  

Libya  0.05  0.20  0.16  

Kuwait  0.05  0.08  0.12  

Iraq  0.55  0.03  0.006  

UAE  0.03  0.04  0.08  

Other  0.03  0.19  0.15  
Source: ELMPS, 2012  
The migration Expansion Phase in Egypt started in the 1970s when, after the oil boom of 1973, the Gulf 
oil exporting countries found their development programs constrained by labor shortages and so 
started importing large numbers of workers from neighboring countries (Nassar, 2011; Wahba, 2015). 
This phase also witnessed high demand for educators and healthcare workers needed for the 
development of their respective sectors in several Arab countries. Being the most populous country in 
the Arab world, Egypt became a major source of migrant labor. Migration was encouraged by the 
government with the purpose of sending doctors, pharmacists, teachers, and construction workers to 
help the Gulf States in their development plans as well as relieve the pressure on the government in 
facing internal economic issues (Sell, 1988; Wahba, 2015; Zohry & Harrell-Bond, 2003).  
This rapid increase in Egyptian migration continued into the early 1980s reaching 3.3 million Egyptian 
migrants in oil-rich countries by 1983. Iraq was the most popular destination for Egyptian emigrants 
during the 80‟s due to its liberal immigration policies towards fellow Arabs. However, by the second 
half of the 80‟s, the Contraction Phase began as political and economic developments in the Arab oil-
producing countries caused a cutback in employment opportunities. The decline in oil prices due to the 
Iran-Iraq War forced the Gulf oil industry into a recession, which cost many Egyptian construction 
workers their jobs. Moreover, Egyptian migrants started facing competition from low-paid Asian 
workers that started migrating to oil-rich countries as well (Paton, 2015; Zohry, 2007).  
Such migratory contraction pushed Egyptian migration into a Deterioration Phase, which was fueled 
by the Gulf War in 1990. This phase witnessed a significant flow of return migrants from Iraq and 
Kuwait, temporarily reducing the number of Egyptian emigrants to about 1.4 million (Paton, 2015; 
Zohry, 2007). After the war, Egyptian emigration rates went up again raising the number of Egyptian 
emigrants to more than 2.8 million by 1996 (Paton, 2015)and contracts with Saudi Arabia and Libya 
pushed Egyptian emigration to a steady pace over the 90‟s (Nassar, 2011; Zohry & Harrell-Bond, 2003).   
Migration in Egypt is viewed as not only a response to the oil boom in Arab Gulf countries, but also as 
a consequence of numerous economic difficulties that Egypt has continued to experience over the years. 
In 2008, it was estimated that around 6.8 million Egyptians were living abroad (Paton, 2015). Such 
increase in Egyptian emigration can be considered a natural response to poverty, uneven distribution 
of economic activities, income and wealth as well as overpopulation and high unemployment rates 
which plagued Egypt over the 2000‟s building up to the uprising in 2011 (Paton, 2015; Zohry, 2007; 
Zohry & Harrell-Bond, 2003).  
  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

6 | P a g e  

  
Figure 1: Number of Current and Return migrants leaving Egypt each year over 1974-2012 Source: 
ELMPS, 2012   
Figure1 demonstrates the number of Egyptians who temporarily emigrated and eventually returned 
(Return Migrants) compared to those who emigrated but stayed abroad (Current Migrants) over the 
period 19742012. The plot greatly matches the migration trends defined by Egyptian migration phases. 
The expansion phase witnessed the largest number of Egyptian workers temporarily emigrating in 
response to the high demand for labor in the Gulf countries. But, since they were mostly “guest 
workers,” more migrants from this phase have returned compared to those who stayed abroad. The 
deterioration phase exhibited a low number of both temporary and current Egyptian emigrants due to 
the political and economic turmoil in the Gulf region during that phase. The most recent phase 
exhibited the largest number of Egyptians who migrated and are still abroad compared to those who 
returned.  
It is interesting to note that the largest number of migrants of the third phase left Egypt specifically 
during 2011, the year in which the 25th of January Revolution took place. This raises a lot of questions 
regarding whether such a large number of emigrants can be attributed to the political instability in 
Egypt brought on by the revolution. Also, since migration during that phase was mainly fueled by the 
adverse social, political, and economic conditions of the Egyptian market, it is unknown whether such 
migrants have eventually returned -or still plan to return- to Egypt at some point past 2012.  
Still, despite the growth in Egyptian migration over decades, the majority of Egyptian emigrants are 
expected to return home eventually (Zohry, 2007). Figure 1 illustrates that by showing that very few of 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

7 | P a g e  

the Egyptians who migrated in the first and second phase were still abroad by 2012. During the 70‟s 
and 80‟s, Secondment Policies established by the Egyptian government encouraged temporary 
migration through bilateral contracts where public sector employees were allowed to take leaves of 
absence, for years at a time, to work abroad with the guarantee that their positions would remain 
available upon their return (Sell, 1988; Zohry & Harrell-Bond, 2003). Moreover, most Arab countries 
accept migrant labor under the “kefala” system, where foreigners must be "sponsored" for admission, 
making permanent residency and citizenship impossible for foreigners (Jureidini, 2010). Such system 
was developed with the purpose of preventing permanent immigrant settlement by depriving them of 
political, social or economic rights in their destination country and stipulating that the migrant leave 
the country upon termination of employment (Sell, 1988; Wahba, 2015). Table 2 highlights the most 
prominent reasons for Egyptian migration and return.  
Table 2: Return Migrants’ Reasons for Migration/Return  

Reason for Migrating    

Found a Better Job Abroad  0.67  

Unemployed and Seeking Work  0.19  

Higher Wages  0.08  

Reason for Return    

Poor Working Conditions  0.26  

Contract Ended  0.18  

To Get Married  0.14  

To Care for Family  0.10  

War in Iraq/Kuwait. Desire to Return. Bad weather  0.10  

Source: ELMPS, 2012  
Focusing on return migrants only, figure 2 illustrates the number of temporary migrants who left 
compared to those who returned to Egypt in each phase. The expansion phase naturally had more 
people emigrating from Egypt compared to those returning, while the deterioration phase had more 
migrants returning to Egypt compared to those leaving during that phase. The year 1990 in particular 
had a large number of returnees due to the political and economic turmoil that pushed migrants out of 
Iraq. The most recent phase witnessed a lot more Egyptians returning compared to those temporarily 
leaving Egypt during that period which could be because by that time, many of those who had migrated 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

8 | P a g e  

in phase 1 and 2 had already been abroad for about 10-20 years, thus had completed their migratory 
purpose and returned home.   
It could also be attributed to the 2011 Revolution which might have encouraged a lot of Egyptians to 
return from abroad; either to actively partake in such national event or because of tense relations that 
the revolution sparked with some countries. 

 
  
Figure 2: Number of Return Migrants leaving and returning to Egypt each year over 1974 - 2012  
Source: ELMPS, 2012  
3. Data and Specifications   
This research gives an overview of the characteristics of Egyptian migrants by identifying the factors 
that affect and determine international migration decisions among the Egyptian labor force. Given that 
Egyptian migration is mostly temporary, the analysis is extended to differentiate between the 
characteristics of those who migrated and eventually returned to Egypt compared to those who still 
remain abroad. Both migration and return decisions are analyzed from a micro level perspective with 
the purpose of identifying the characteristics that influenced the worker‟s individual decision to 
migrate/return.  
The study is conducted using data from the Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey (ELMPS), which is a 
longitudinal survey that has been carried out by the Economic Research Forum (ERF) in cooperation 
with Egypt‟s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) since 1998. ELMPS 2012, 
the third and most recent round of the survey is used in this analysis.  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

9 | P a g e  

Since the focus of this research is to identify the factors that affect migration decisions among the 
Egyptian labor force, only respondents aging between 20-60 years are considered. The sample was also 
restricted to include only males since preliminary results showed that females only represent about 5% 
of total migrants. The small percentage is not surprising given the relatively low female labor force 
participation rate in Egypt discussed in Hosney's (2016) study as well as the social and cultural norms 
of the Egyptian society.  
Based on the questionnaire design, respondents can be classified as migrants or non-migrants. 
Migrants can be categorized as either current or return migrants. Current migrants are workers who 
were abroad at the time the survey was conducted while return migrants are workers who have worked 
abroad for more than 6 months but were residing in Egypt in 2012. Separate models will be estimated 
for the 2 types of migrants to compare their characteristics and distinctions  
Respondents are then further grouped, based on the migrants‟ year of emigration, into to 3 phases 
which correspond to Egypt‟s history of migration described in the literature. The first phase is when 
Egyptian migration began to flourish, so is referred to as the Expansion phase, taking place during 1974-
1989. The second phase, referred to as the Deterioration phase, is the period during which Egyptian 
migration slowed down due to the political and economic turmoil in the region from 1990-2003.   
The third phase is the more recent phase, taking place during 2004-2012, where Egyptian migration 
became not just a matter of pull factors abroad but also push factors at home.   
For the Migration model, each phase group includes migrant workers who first emigrated during that 
phase and non-migrant workers aged between 20-60 years who stayed in Egypt during that time. For 
the Return model, each phase group includes only migrant workers who first emigrated during that 
phase, some are still abroad so are categorized as current migrants, while others have eventually 
returned so are categorized as return migrants. For both models, each phase group only includes 
migrants who first emigrated in that phase, so for example, a worker who first migrated in 1980 is 
included only in the phase 1 group and not any other. That way, by running a separate estimation for 
each phase, any distinction between migrant characteristics and their influence on migration/return 
probability over phases can be observed.  
The models used in this paper is based on the Hierarchical Regression Approach developed by Chi and 
Voss (2005). The model and variables used in the Chi and Voss‟ study were modified in order to better 
suit the micro level, individual specific, analysis intended in this study and the Egyptian labor force‟s 
characteristics.  
In order to determine the factors influencing workers‟ decision to migrate, Probit Regression Model (1) 
is used with “Migrate” as a dependent variable classifying the worker as either a migrant or non-
migrant. It is a qualitative binary variable so is expressed by a dummy variable representing the 
worker‟s decision to migrate. The sample for this model is all male individuals within the specified age 
range so includes both, migrants and nonmigrants.  
 Pr (Migrate) = F (Age, Educational Attainment, Region)  (1)  
The regressions then estimate the factors that influence a worker‟s probability of migrating which are 
represented by a set of continuous and dummy individual specific variables, listed in Table3 that are 
hypothesized to influence a worker‟s decision to migrate. Starting with Age, for migrants, the age 
considered is that when they first emigrated from Egypt. As for non-migrants, age is calculated at a 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

10 | P a g e  

median reference year depending on the phase used in the estimation. So, for example, the age variable 
of the first phase‟s estimation considers the age of the migrants when they first emigrated during that 
phase while the age of non-migrants in 1981. That way, the comparison between migrants and non-
migrants is estimated at a relatively similar point in time. Based on the Human Capital theory, the 
worker‟s age is hypothesized to have a nonlinear relationship with the probability to migrate (Chi & 
Voss, 2005). It is expected that since younger people have more to gain from migrating and are more 
willing to take the risks associated with migration than older people, they are more likely to migrate 
(Ghoneim, 2010).  
As for Educational Attainment, it refers to the highest educational level an individual has reached and 
is represented by dummy variables for 3 main educational categories: primary education, secondary 
education and higher education. It is hypothesized that the higher the individual‟s educational 
attainment, the more likely they are to migrate due to their increased awareness of possible 
opportunities abroad (Borjas, 2012; Greenwood, 1969). Finally, Region refers to the region in Egypt 
where the individual lives. Egypt can be divided into 3 regions represented by the dummy variables 
Metropolitan, Rural and Urban Egypt. It is hypothesized that workers living in less developed regions 
are more likely to migrate than those living in developed regions because they have a stronger motive 
to seek better living conditions abroad (Cushing, 1993; Zohry, 2007).  
In order to determine the factors influencing migrant workers‟ decision to return, Probit Regression 
Model (2) is used with “Return” as dependent variable identifying the worker as a current or return 
migrant. It is a qualitative binary variable expressed by a dummy representing the worker‟s decision to 
return. The sample for this model is male migrants within the specified age range so includes only 
migrants, some of which are current migrants and some are return migrants. 
Pr (Return) = F (Age, Educational Attainment, Region)  (2) 
The regressions then estimate the factors that influence a migrant‟s probability of returning using the 
same explanatory individual specific variables listed in Table 3, which are hypothesized to influence a 
worker‟s decision to return. Starting with age, it is hypothesized that the older the worker was when 
they first emigrated, the less likely they are to return. It is expected that if a worker had migrated at an 
older age, then they are likely to stay abroad for a longer period to reap the rewards of their late 
migration decision.  As for educational attainment, it is hypothesized that the higher the worker‟s 
educational attainment, the less likely they are to return. This is expected because those with a higher 
education are more likely to find suitable jobs abroad and so would be less motivated to return 
compared to those with a lower education.   
Finally, regarding region of residence, it is hypothesized that the more developed the region in which 
the migrant lived in before they migrated, the more likely they are to return. This expected because 
those from more developed or metropolitan regions have more opportunities to return to at home 
compared to those from less developed regions. 
Table 3: Variable Description  

Variable Name  Variable Description  

Dependent 
Variables  

 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

11 | P a g e  

Migrate  

 
Refers to workers‟ migration status  
= 1 if migrant  
= 0 if non-migrant  

Return  

 

Refers to migrant workers‟ return status  
= 1 if return migrant  
= 0 if current migrant  

Independent 
Variables  

 

Age  

 For migrants: age at emigration.   
For non-migrants: age at a median reference year depending on the 
estimated phase  
  
= The age of the respondent ranging 20 – 60 years  

Educational 
Attainment  

 
Refers to the highest educational level reached with secondary used 
as the reference variable.  

Primary  
 = 1 if illiterate, literate, elementary, or preparatory   

= 0 otherwise  

Secondary  
 

= 1 if general/vocational secondary or post-secondary institute  = 0 
otherwise  

Higher  
 = 1 if university or post-graduate  

= 0 otherwise  

Region  
 

Refers to the region in Egypt where the individual lives with Rural 
used as the reference variable  

Rural  

 
= 1 if Rural Lower/Upper Egypt   
= 0 otherwise  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

12 | P a g e  

Urban  
 = 1 if Urban Lower/Upper Egypt,   

= 0 otherwise  

Metropolitan  
 = 1 if Cairo, Alexandria, or Suez Canal   

= 0 otherwise   

  
4. Results  
This chapter covers the results of the data analysis and model estimations. The first section covers 
descriptive statistics which demonstrate the different characteristics of current, return, and non-
migrants. The second section covers the output and discussion of the migration model. The third 
section covers the output and discussion of the return model.  
4.1 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics  

Variable  
Current 
Migrants  

Return 
Migrants  

Total 
Migrants  

Non- 
Migrants  

Total Observations  698  1,204  1,902  9,869  

Average Age at Migration  28  26  27  -  

Destination Country          

Saudi Arabia  0.46  0.25  0.33  -  

Jordan  0.12  0.15  0.14  -  

Kuwait  0.15  0.05  0.09  -  

Libya  0.07  0.19  0.14  -  

Iraq  0.003  0.25  0.16  -  

UAE  0.05  0.008  0.02    

Average Duration Spent 
Abroad  

0.08  0.05  0.06  -  

Marital Status  6  5  5  -  

Married          

Unmarried  0.76  0.93  0.87  0.75  

Migration Companions  0.24  0.06  0.13  0.24  

Alone          

With Family Members  0.92  0.95  0.94  -  

Position in Household   0.08  0.05  0.06  -  

Male Spouse          

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

13 | P a g e  

Son  0.59  0.91  0.58  0.70  

Educational Attainment  0.35  0.08  0.21  0.28  

Primary          

Secondary  0.29  0.42  0.37  0.39  

Higher  0.50  0.44  0.46  0.42  

Region of Residence in Egypt  0.21  0.14  0.17  0.19  

Rural          

Urban  0.10  0.65  0.45  0.53  

Metropolitan  0.17  0.23  0.21  0.26  

Source: ELMPS, 2012          

4.1 Table 4 shows that 16% of the total sample are migrants, 63% of which have migrated and returned 
while37% were still abroad at the time the survey was conducted, and so are referred to as current 
migrants. The majority of both types of migrants first left Egypt in their20schoosing neighboring Arab 
countries, especially oil exporting countries suffering from labor shortages, as their destination with 
the majority residing in Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, a large share of return migrants (25%) were 
residing in Iraq during their migration years but their share dropped significantly among current 
migrants (0.3%), further demonstrating how the economic and political turmoil of the 90‟s pushed 
Egyptian emigrants out of Iraq even decades after the war. Only about 5% of total migrants reside in 
USA and Europe combined. Regardless of the destination, the average duration migrants have lived 
abroad is 5-6 years. 
Currently, most migrants are married, which explains why they are mostly described as spouses 
however, at the time of their migration, 94% stated that they had migrated alone. This indicates that 
for most households, the migrant is the husband or the male child. The highest educational attainment 
reached by the majority of migrants and non-migrants is a secondary education. It is notable though 
that a primary education is more dominant among return migrants (42%) compared to current 
migrants (29%) while a higher education is more prominent among current migrants (21%) compared 
to return migrants (14%). Indicating that current migrants tend to be more educated than return 
migrants. Also, most current migrants (73%) used to live in Greater Cairo and Alexandria, the most 
developed metropolitan regions in Egypt compared to only 12% of return migrants, who mostly lived in 
rural Egypt (65%). Indicating that current migrants tend to have lived in more developed regions of 
Egypt before migrating than return migrants. 
Table 5: Education and Region for All Migrants over Migration Phases  

  
Phase 1: 
Expansion  (1974-
1989)   

Phase 2: 
Deterioration  
(1990-2003)   

Phase 3: 
Recent  
(2004-2012)   

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

14 | P a g e  

Total Observations   
Educational Attainment   

521   
  

554   
  

824   
  

Primary   0.48   0.40   0.28   

Secondary   0.40   0.43   0.53   

Higher   0.13   0.17   0.19   

Region         

Rural   0.62   0.66   0.74   

Urban   0.23   0.23   0.18   

Metropolitan   0.15   0.12   0.08   

Source: ELMPS, 2012  
Table 5 indicates that migration in Egypt has been increasing over time with the highest number of 
migrants leaving Egypt between 2004-2012. That is understandable since according to Zohry (2007), 
emigration in Egypt is not only a reflection of the oil boom in Arab Gulf countries, but also of economic 
difficulties and high rates of population growth that Egypt has continued to experience over the years.   
Table 5 also demonstrates how certain variables have changed across the different time periods. 
Looking at migrants‟ educational attainment over migration phases shows that generally, migrants are 
becoming more educated. This is highlighted by the fact that over time, the share of migrants with a 
primary education has continuously declined while the share of migrants with a secondary and higher 
education has been on the rise. Regarding region, across phases rural regions have constantly been the 
largest source of Egyptian emigrants as opposed to metropolitan areas.  

  
Figure3: Current and Return Migrants Average Age at Migration over 1974 - 2012  
Source: ELMPS, 2012  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

15 | P a g e  

As for age, figure 3 demonstrates that there is a general upward trend for age at migration among both 
types of migrants indicating that people are recently choosing to emigrate at an older age than when 
they migrated in the past.  Comparing current migrants and return migrants age at migration, it is clear 
that most migrants who remain abroad tend to have migrated at an older age than migrants who have 
eventually returned to Egypt.  
4.2 Results: Migration Model  
This section covers results of the migration model estimation, highlighting the individual factors that 
determine a worker‟s decision to migrate. The regression was run using a sample of all respondents 
within the restricted age limit thus including all migrants and non-migrants. 
Table 6: Results Model (2) - Total Migrants’ Variable Coefficients over Phases  

Variable  
Phase 1: Expansion 
1974 - 1989  

  
Phase 2: Contraction 
1990 - 2003  

  
Phase 3: Recent 
2004 - 2012  

  Coeff.  SE    Coeff.  SE    Coeff.  SE  

ß0  -
12.25658***  

2.043937    -
6.458559***  

1.371105    -
3.595301***  

0.933242  

Age  1.272817***  0.193426    0.507896***  0.128631    0.222039***  0.083993  

Age^2  -
0.040714***  

0.005797    -
0.013768***  

0.003876    -
0.005654***  

0.002410  

Age^3  0.000379***  5.44E-05    0.000105***  3.75E-05    3.82E-05***  2.20E-05  
Primary  -

0.564164***  
0.070873    -

0.230097***  
0.055451    -

0.230645***  
0.043967  

Higher  -
0.362897***  

0.096087    -
0.106042***  

0.069974    -
0.060109***  

0.050271  

Urban  -
0.399391***  

0.074140    -
0.263744***  

0.059038    -
0.381961***  

0.047308  

Metropolitan  -
0.631297***  

0.081459    -
0.484893***  

0.070616    -
0.599451***  

0.059750  

N with 
Dep=0  

2989    5699    9906  

N with Dep=1  521    554    824  
Probit Regression estimates using ELMPS, 2012  
Sample: whole sample (migrant and non-migrant) males aging 20-60 years old  
(***) indicate significance at 1%, (**) indicate significance at 5%, (*) indicate significance at 10%  
Looking at table 6, the age variable estimates indicate a nonlinear relationship between a worker‟s age 
and his probability of migration across phases. As an individual grows older, their probability to migrate 
increases but at a decreasing rate until reaching a certain age, in the case of phase 3 it is 28 years, after 
which the probability to migrate decreases as age increases. Such relationship is displayed in figure 4. 
The resulting age relation is not surprising since, based on the Human Capital theory, migration is 
viewed as an investment in the future, so a younger person has a longer period over which they can 
collect the returns to their migration investment (Borjas, 2012; Chi & Voss, 2005).  Also, youth, 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

16 | P a g e  

especially at the beginning of their career, are more open to taking risks so they are more accepting of 
the risks associated with migration if it means getting a chance at a better life (Ghoneim, 2010).  

 
Age at Migration - Phase 3  
Figure 4: Relationship between probability of migration and age during phase 3  
Regarding educational attainment, estimates indicate that, during all phases, workers with a primary 
education have a consistently lower probability of migrating than those with a secondary education. 
This can be attributed to the fact that, over several decades, Egyptians have migrated to cover labor 
shortages in their destination countries and a primary education, in most cases, is not sufficient to fulfill 
job requirements in industries such as construction, education or healthcare.   
However, the probability of migration for a worker with a higher education differs over phases. In the 
expansion phase (1), workers with a higher education were less likely to migrate than those with a 
secondary education. This could be because, during the expansion phase, there was an urgent need 
specifically for technically skilled workers in the Gulf to contribute to building their oil industry. 
However, in the later phases (2 and 3), the probability of migration for a worker with a higher education 
is not significantly different from that of one with a secondary education, but both workers with a higher 
and a secondary education are more likely to migrate than a worker with a primary education. This 
supports the hypothesis that more educated workers are more likely to migrate than less educated 
workers. 
This stems from the fact that Egypt is a country with relatively low returns to education, specifically 
higher education, which is made clear by the high unemployment rates present among university 
graduates in particular. Ghoneim's (2010) and David and Nordman's (2017) studies support these 
findings attributing them to a mismatch between the output higher education offers and what the 
Egyptian labor market demands. So, more educated workers seek work abroad in order to fully utilize 
the benefits of their knowledge.  
Finally, region estimates indicate that, over all phases, those residing in metropolitan and urban Egypt 
are less likely to migrate than those living in rural Egypt, supporting the hypothesis that workers living 
in less developed regions are more likely to migrate than those living in developed regions. Since rural 
Egypt is less industrialized and less influenced by trade than the rest of Egypt (Zohry, 2007), a worker 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

17 | P a g e  

living in that region has a higher probability of migrating in search of better living conditions than a 
worker from metropolitan Cairo.  
4.3 Results: Return Model  
This section covers results of the return model estimation, highlighting the individual factors that 
determine a worker‟s decision to return, distinguishing between characteristics of migrants who 
eventually returned and those who remain abroad. The regression was run using a sample of all male 
respondents within the restricted age limit thus including migrants only.   
The estimation was initially run for each phase separately, however output showed no significant 
distinction in impact of the explanatory variables on the probability of return across phases. The 
estimation output with the phase distinction is included in Appendix 1.  
Table 7: Results Model (3) – Return VS. Current Migrants’ Variable Coefficients   
  

Variable   Coeff.   SE     

ß0   1.268437***   0.141345    

Age   
-
0.044034***   

0.005210    

Primary   0.504702***   0.069962    

Higher   -0.188767***   0.086813    

Urban   0.396896***   0.079167    

Metropolitan   0.457026***   0.104686    

N with 
Dep=0   

698     

N with Dep=1   1204     

Probit Regression Estimates using ELMPS, 2012  
Sample: only migrant (current and return) males aging 20-60 years old  
(***) indicate significance at 1%, (**) indicate significance at 5%, (*) indicate significance at 10%    
Considering 4.3 Results: Return Model  
This section covers results of the return model estimation, highlighting the individual factors that 
determine a worker‟s decision to return, distinguishing between characteristics of migrants who 
eventually returned and those who remain abroad. The regression was run using a sample of all male 
respondents within the restricted age limit thus including migrants only.   
The estimation was initially run for each phase separately, however output showed no significant 
distinction in impact of the explanatory variables on the probability of return across phases. The 
estimation output with the phase distinction is included in Appendix 1.    

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

18 | P a g e  

, results show that generally, the older the migrant is at emigration, the less likely they are to return. 
This can be because workers that decided to emigrate at an old age have already had enough experience 
in the Egyptian job market and so, given the chance to experience a new market with added benefits, 
prefer to stay longer abroad. The negative relationship is displayed in Figure 5.  

 
Age at Migration 
Figure 5: Relationship between probability of return and age during phase 3  
Regarding educational attainment, primary education estimates indicate that those with a primary 
education are more likely to return than those with a secondary education. That is because less educated 
Egyptian migrants face strong competition from cheaper and more qualified Asian labor so are replaced 
and forced to return. As for higher education, estimates indicate that migrants with a higher education 
are less likely to return than those with a secondary education. 
Which means that, despite the Secondment policies the Egyptian government adopted guaranteeing 
migrants with a higher education public jobs upon their return, highly educated migrants are still less 
likely to return than less educated migrants. Supporting the claim that return migrants tend to be less 
educated than the average migrant, which can be attributed to the mismatch between the outcomes of 
the educational system and qualifications required in the Egyptian job market that act as a disincentive 
for the return of the highly educated (David & Nordman, 2017; Ghoneim, 2010).  
As for region, estimates indicate that migrants who used to live in Metropolitan and Urban areas of 
Egypt before they emigrated are more likely to return than those who lived in Rural Egypt. This can be 
because metropolitan and urban areas of Egypt are not as poorly endowed as rural areas, so those who 
used to live in the more developed regions are more likely to return, because they have more 
possibilities to return to compared to those from Rural Egypt.  
5. Conclusion  
This paper tackled international migration analysis from a micro perspective by identifying the 
individual characteristics that affect each worker‟s decision to migrate and decision to return. It aimed 
to understand the characteristics that influence individuals‟ probability of migration, then distinguish 
between the characteristics of those who migrated and eventually returned to Egypt compared to those 
who still remain abroad. So, also highlighting the characteristics that determine an individual‟s 
probability of return. The study covered the period 1974 – 2012 which was divided into phases, with 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

19 | P a g e  

the estimates of the migration model run for each phase separately. Thus, noting how the effect of 
individual characteristics on migration decisions varied across migration phases.  
Egyptian migration is mostly temporary; where emigrants are considered „guest workers‟ migrating to 
fulfill specific purposes. So, the majority return to Egypt after their purpose is complete. Most Egyptian 
emigrants, both current and return, are married males who migrated alone, in their late 20s, in search 
of higher wages and better working conditions abroad. The majority of migrants have a secondary 
education and used to reside in rural areas of Egypt before they migrated. Most Egyptian emigrants 
have chosen neighboring Arab countries as their destinations, namely Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and 
Kuwait, due to the distance and language advantages as well as the Gulf‟s need to cover domestic labor 
shortages.  
For all migrants, estimates indicate that migration is a selective process as different individual, family, 
and community characteristics affect the migration and return decision differently. Regarding age, 
results indicate that older workers are less likely to migrate than younger workers, however, had they 
emigrated at an older age, then they are less likely to return. This is explained by the fact that migration 
is viewed as an investment in the future that younger individuals have more to gain from, but if a worker 
happened to migrate at an older age after having had more experience in the Egyptian job market, then 
they prefer to stay longer abroad to experience the new market with its added benefits.  
As for educational attainment, there are distinctions between education levels‟ effect over time. 
Primary education results are similar across phases. Those with a primary education are consistently 
less likely to migrate and more likely to return than those with a secondary and a higher education. 
Results for higher education differ over phases of the migration model though. In the earlier phase, 
those with a higher education were less likely to migrate than those with a secondary education. 
However, in the more recent phases, those with a higher education are just as likely to migrate as those 
with a secondary education but, both are more likely to migrate than those with a primary education. 
As for probability of return, those with a higher education are less likely to return than both, those with 
a primary and a secondary education. Thus, indicating that, especially in the most recent period, the 
higher the individual‟s educational attainment, the more likely they are to migrate and the less likely 
they are to return. This can be attributed to the mismatch between the outcomes of the educational 
system and the qualifications required in the Egyptian job market that acts as an incentive for the highly 
educated to seek work abroad and a disincentive for their return.  
Regarding region, results indicate that workers residing in less developed areas of Egypt, namely rural  
Egypt, are more likely to migrate and less likely to return compared to those living in urban and 
metropolitan Egypt. The lack of social and economic amenities in rural areas encourages individuals 
from those regions to pursue better living conditions abroad and discourages their return.   
Still, there are some distinctions between emigrants who returned and those who remained abroad. 
Return migrants tend to have migrated at a younger age compared to current migrants. They are 
generally less educated, based on the estimated negative relation between educational attainment and 
probability of return, which explains the smaller share of high educational attainment among returnees. 
They also used to reside in more developed areas before they emigrated, such as metropolitan Cairo 
and urban Egypt, which makes them more likely to return compared to those from rural Egypt. There 
are a number of limitations to the empirical procedures and results that should be taken into 

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

20 | P a g e  

consideration. One of the main limitations of the study is the exclusion of some Egyptian emigrants 
from the sample.   
Fully migrating families are not accounted for in the sample because all members of the household are 
abroad, so no one was present to respond to the survey questions. There is also the issue of illegal 
migrants who do reside outside of Egypt but are excluded from the sample because there is no record 
of their movement.  
This study opens the door for several aspects of further research. Outcome of the models lead to 
implications regarding the phenomenon of Brain Drain, which is one of the most hotly debated issues 
regarding the consequences of migration, referring to the emigration of highly skilled and qualified 
persons from developing countries to developed countries (Wahba, 2015; Zohry, 2007). Even though it 
is not the focus of this study, the regression output suggests that Egypt may be suffering from brain 
drain due to labor migration. Especially during the more recent phase, where it was shown that those 
with a higher education have a high probability of migration and a low probability of return. Thus, 
further research could be directed towards reaching a more concrete view regarding brain drain and 
adding insights to the long-standing debate on its consequences.  
6. References  

Adams, R. H., & Page, J. (2005). Do international migration and remittances reduce poverty in 
developing countries? World Development, 33(10), 1645–1669.   

Arenas, E., Conroy, H., & Nobles, J. (2009). Recent Trends in Internal and International Mexican 
Migration : Evidence from the Mexican Family Life Survey. UCLA CCPR Population Working 
Papers.  

Bell, M., & Ward, G. (2000). Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration. Tourism 
Geographies, 2(1), 87–107.   

Borjas, G. J. (2012). Labor Economics. McGraw-Hill.  

Borjas, G. J., & Bratsberg, B. (1996). Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born. The Review 
of Economics and Statistics, 78(1), 165.   

Bukenya, J. O., Schaeffer, P. V, & Gebremedhin, T. G. (2003). The Effect of Wage Differentials and 
Regional Job Growth on Migration: A Case of West Virginia. West Virginia University CAPMAS, 
(2014). Egypt Statistical Yearbook, 2014.Cairo: CAPMAS.  

Chi, G., & Voss, P. (2005). Migration Decision-making : A Hierarchical Regression Approach. Journal 
of Regional Analysis and Policy, 35, 1100-2016–89997.  

Cushing, B. J. (1993). The Effect of the Social Welfare System on Metropolitan Migration in the US, by 
Income Group, Gender and Family Structure. Urban Studies, 30(2), 325–337.   

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

21 | P a g e  

Davanzo, J. (1980). Micro economic approaches to studying migration decisions. The Rand 
Corporation, (N-1201NICHD).  

David, A. M., & Nordman, C. J. (2017). Skill mismatch and migration in Egypt and Tunisia.  

Djajić, S., & Milbourne, R. (1988). A general equilibrium model of guest-worker migration: The source-
country perspective. Journal of International Economics, 25(3–4), 335–351.   

Djajić, S., & Vinogradova, A. (2015). Overstaying guest workers and the incentives for return. CESifo 
Economic Studies, 61(3–4), 764–796.   

Özden, Ç., & Schiff, M. (2006). International Migration, Remittances, And The Brain Drain. The World 
Bank.  

Dustmann, C. (1995). Savings Behavior of Return Migrants. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschafts Und 
Sozialwissenschaften, 115, 511–33.  

Dustmann, C., Fadlon, I., & Weiss, Y. (2011). Return migration, human capital accumulation and the 
brain drain. Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 58–67.   

Dustmann, C., & Görlach, J.-S. (2016). The Economics of Temporary Migrations. Journal of Economic 
Literature, 54(1), 98–136.   

Freeman, R. (2006). People Flows in Globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 145–170.   

Gaston, N., & Nelson, D. R. (2013). Bridging trade theory and labour econometrics: The effects of 
international migration. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(1), 98–139.   

Ghoneim, A. F. (2010). Labour Migration for Decent Work, Economic Growth and Development in 
Egypt. International Labour Organization.   

Greenwood, M. J. (1969). The Determinants of Labor Migration in Egypt. Journal of Regional Science, 
9(2), 283–290.  

Greenwood, M. J., Ladman, J. R., & Siegel, B. S. (1981). Long-Term Trends in Migratory Behavior in a 
Developing Country: The Case of Mexico. Demography, 18(3), 369–388.   

Hagen-zanker, J. (2008). Why do people migrate? A Review of the theoretical literature. Maastricht 
Graduate School of Governance  

Hill, J. K. (1987). Immigrant decisions concerning duration of stay and migratory frequency. Journal 
of Development Economics, 25(1), 221–234.   

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

22 | P a g e  

Hosney, S. H. (2016). Factors Influencing Female Labor Force Participation in Egypt and Germany: A 
Comparative Study. The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), Papers on Multidisciplinary 
Panel Data Research (No. 826).  

International Labor Organization, (2015). ILO global estimates on migrant workers. Geneva.  

International Organization for Migration. (2010). World migration report 2010. The future of 
migration, building capacities for change.  

Jureidini, R. (2010). Regulation of Migration in Egypt. Middle East Institute, 3–7.   

Kaluzny, R. L. (1975). Determinants of Household Migration: A Comparative Study by Race and Poverty 
Level. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 269–274.   

Longino, C. F., Marshall, V. W., Mullins, L. C., & Tucker, R. D. (1991). On the Nesting of Snowbirds: A 
Question About Seasonal and Permanent Migrants. The Journal of Applied Gerontology, 10(2), 
157–168.   

Lucas, R. E. B. (2008). International Labor Migration in a Globalizing Economy. Trade, Equity, and 
Development Program. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (92).   

Mayda, A. M. (2010). International migration: A panel data analysis of the determinants of bilateral 
flows. Journal of Population Economics, 23(4), 1249–1274.   

Mincer, J. (1971). Family Migration Decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 749–773.   

Nassar, H. (2011). Recent trends of Egyptian migration. Mediterranean and Sub-Saharan Migration: 
Recent Developments Demographic and Economic Module.  

OAMDI, (2016). Labor Market Panel Surveys (LMPS), http://erf.org.eg/data-portal/. Version 2.2 of 
Licensed Data Files; ELMPS 2012. Egypt: Economic Research Forum (ERF).  

Ortega, F., & Peri, G. (2009). The Causes and Effects of International Labor Mobility: Evidence from 
OECD Countries 1980-2005. Human Development Research Paper (HDRP), 6(19183), 1–46.   

Paton, W. (2015). Development in Motion: Mainstreaming Migration and Development in Egypt. 
International Organization for Migration.  

Piper, N. (2009). Temporary migration and political remittances: The role of organisational networks 
in the transnationalisation of human rights. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 8(2), 215–
243.  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

23 | P a g e  

Polachek, S. W., & Horvath, F. W. (1977). A Life Cycle Approach to Migration: Analysis of the 
Perspicacious Peregrinator. Research in Labor Economics, 1(1), 103–149.   

Porumbescu, A. (2015). Defining the New Economics of Labor Migration Theory Boundaries: A 
SociologicalLevel Analysis of International Migration. Revista de Stiinte Politice, 45, 55–64.   

Postelnicu, C. (2012). Some aspects concerning actual cross-border migration of labor force. Review of 
Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 5(2), 163–183.   

Vogler, M.&Rotte, R. (1998). Determinants of international migration: empirical evidence for migration 
from developing countries to Germany. Centre for Economic Policy Research. Discussion Paper 
Series, No. 1920(12), 1– 40.   

Sell, R. R. (1988). Egyptian International Labor Migration and Social Processes: Toward Regional 
Integration . International Migration Review, 22(3), 87–108.   

Van Der Gaag, N., & Van Wissen, L. (2008). Economic determinants of internal migration rates: A 
comparison across five European countries. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 
99(2), 209–222.   

Wahba, J. (2015). Through the Keyhole: International Migration in Egypt. In The Egyptian Labor 
Market in an Era of Revolution (pp. 198–217).   

Zohry, A. (2007). Migration and Development in Egypt, Project Group Meeting on Migration as a 
Potential and Risk: Europe and the MENA Region. Osnabruck University and Robert Bosch 
Foundation.   

Zohry, A., & Harrell-Bond, B. (2003). Contemporary Egyptian Migration: An overview of volontary and 
forced migration. Development Research Center on Migration, Globalization, and Poverty, 
University of Sussex., C3.   

  
Appendix 1  
Return Model with Phase Distinction  
This section demonstrates results of the return model estimation with phase distinction, highlighting 
the individual factors that determine a worker‟s decision to return, differentiating between 
characteristics of migrants who eventually returned and those who remain abroad.    
Results Model (3) – Return VS. Current Migrants’ Variable Coefficients over Phases  

Variable   
Phase 1: Expansion   
  
1974 - 1989   

Phase 2: Contraction   
  
1990 - 2 003   

Phase 3: Recent  
2004 – 2012   

  Coeff.   SE     Coeff.   SE     Coeff.   SE   

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com


American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 

Volume 10 Issue 2, April-June 2022 

ISSN: 2836-9416 

Impact Factor: 4.85 

Journal Homepage: https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, 

Email: contact@americaserial.com 

Official Journal of America Serial Publication 
 

American Research Journal of Economics, Finance and Management 
https://americaserial.com/Journals/index.php/ARJEFM, Email: contact@americaserial.com 

24 | P a g e  

ß0   3.002069***   
0.567672  
   

0.887101***   
0.277456  
   

-
0.010648**
*   

0.200163   

Age   
-
0.052333***   

0.022887  
   

-
0.014977***   

0.010366  
   

-
0.014587**
*   

0.007121   

Primary   
-
0.036995***   

0.227342  
   

0.276347***   
0.136462  
   

0.186891***   0.107900   

Higher   
-
0.327042***   

0.282485  
   

-
0.094537***   

0.174340  
   

-0.267679**   0.127790   

Urban   0.338885***   
0.278071  
   

0.450739***   
0.156091  
   

0.169932**
*   

0.121297   

Metropolitan   
-
0.370837***   

0.242047  
   

0.172476***   
0.196504  
   

0.301252**
*   

0.172418   

N with 
Dep=0   

30     138     529    

N with Dep=1   491     416     295    

Probit Regression Estimates using ELMPS, 2012  
Sample: only migrant (current and return) males aging 20-60 years old  
(***) indicate significance at 1%, (**) indicate significance at 5%, (*) indicate significance at 10%  

mailto:contact@americaserial.com
mailto:contact@americaserial.com

