AbstractThis article analyses whether the human capital gained abroad helps returning migrants to integrate into the Lithuanian labour market. The analysis focuses on highly qualified migrants, defined narrowly as people with higher education who held qualified jobs when working abroad. The article found that for this group of returnees professional aims were important when taking a decision to return, together with other motives such as family reasons and home‐sickness. Most of the returnees were able to find employment and pursue their careers without major difficulties, although a significant minority signalled an intention to emigrate again. The article examines the key factors that sometimes helped and sometimes hindered integration of the returnees and discusses the role of the public policy.
While the concepts of brain drain and brain waste are frequently used to analyse migration from Central and Eastern Europe, this paper starts with an assumption that mobile workers usually gain important skills and knowledge which may help them to return and integrate into the labour market of the home country. Furthermore, this paper focusses on a very specific group for whom the above-mentioned effect is all the more likely: the highly qualified migrants defined narrowly as people with high education who held qualified jobs when working abroad. In this paper, the above-mentioned assumption is tested empirically, drawing on a number of surveys (representative surveys of Lithuanian residents, employers and returnees, a survey of graduates of the "Create for Lithuania" programme, an internet-based survey of highly qualified returnees) and interviews. We found that professional aims (such as the intention to take advantage of their skills and knowledge) were very important reasons for return, although they worked in parallel with broader family and home-sickness motives. In addition, around 2/3 of returnees in our sample mentioned that they wanted to contribute to the progress of Lithuania, and the majority of them agreed that they succeeded in doing that. The data also showed that most of the returnees in our target group were able to find employment without major difficulties. The majority of respondents indicated that skills and knowledge they gained abroad were very useful both for finding a job and pursuing a further career. We identified a number of structural factors that sometimes help and sometimes hinder the integration of the returnees. The returnees did take into consideration the improving economic outlook of the country (while many EU countries have been stagnating) and a rather high standard of the quality of life (in Vilnius). While the majority in the society and among the employers are quite sceptical about the human capital of the returnees (because they consider return as an evidence of failure), they are more receptive towards the highly qualified persons. In turn, the returnees themselves have to deal with a limited number and rather specific circle of potential employers where the appreciation of foreign experience is more likely (e. g., foreign-own companies). Furthermore, the returnees in our sample were also relatively skilled at presenting themselves and had many options for signalling their labour market credentials (such as diplomas, recommendations or brands of their foreign employers). In addition, a significant number of returnees do choose to become self-employed or start their own business. The public sector has played a contradictory role. On the one hand, the returnees were quite sceptical about the Lithuanian public sector in general (too much bureaucracy was the key criticism) and its migration policy efforts in particular. The continuous stalemate with regard to the double citizenship issue was frequently quoted as a symbol of the state being at odds with the needs of its mobile population. The returnees who actually returned to the public sector (six of our interviewees were university researchers) argued that gaining a permanent teaching or research position for scientists from "outside" is still way too difficult, the level of internationalisation and internal cooperation is too limited, and research agenda in humanities is too self-centred on national topics. On the other hand, some migrants returned in response to public sector initiatives, such as the programme for young professionals "Create for Lithuania", EU-supported research grants, and the FDI policy that helped to attract some large employers of highly qualified employees (such as the IT unit of the Barclays bank). Our research also showed the continuing demand for "traditional" migration policy measures such as informing the returnees and helping their children to integrate into the system of secondary education.
While the concepts of brain drain and brain waste are frequently used to analyse migration from Central and Eastern Europe, this paper starts with an assumption that mobile workers usually gain important skills and knowledge which may help them to return and integrate into the labour market of the home country. Furthermore, this paper focusses on a very specific group for whom the above-mentioned effect is all the more likely: the highly qualified migrants defined narrowly as people with high education who held qualified jobs when working abroad. In this paper, the above-mentioned assumption is tested empirically, drawing on a number of surveys (representative surveys of Lithuanian residents, employers and returnees, a survey of graduates of the "Create for Lithuania" programme, an internet-based survey of highly qualified returnees) and interviews. We found that professional aims (such as the intention to take advantage of their skills and knowledge) were very important reasons for return, although they worked in parallel with broader family and home-sickness motives. In addition, around 2/3 of returnees in our sample mentioned that they wanted to contribute to the progress of Lithuania, and the majority of them agreed that they succeeded in doing that. The data also showed that most of the returnees in our target group were able to find employment without major difficulties. The majority of respondents indicated that skills and knowledge they gained abroad were very useful both for finding a job and pursuing a further career. We identified a number of structural factors that sometimes help and sometimes hinder the integration of the returnees. The returnees did take into consideration the improving economic outlook of the country (while many EU countries have been stagnating) and a rather high standard of the quality of life (in Vilnius). While the majority in the society and among the employers are quite sceptical about the human capital of the returnees (because they consider return as an evidence of failure), they are more receptive towards the highly qualified persons. In turn, the returnees themselves have to deal with a limited number and rather specific circle of potential employers where the appreciation of foreign experience is more likely (e. g., foreign-own companies). Furthermore, the returnees in our sample were also relatively skilled at presenting themselves and had many options for signalling their labour market credentials (such as diplomas, recommendations or brands of their foreign employers). In addition, a significant number of returnees do choose to become self-employed or start their own business. The public sector has played a contradictory role. On the one hand, the returnees were quite sceptical about the Lithuanian public sector in general (too much bureaucracy was the key criticism) and its migration policy efforts in particular. The continuous stalemate with regard to the double citizenship issue was frequently quoted as a symbol of the state being at odds with the needs of its mobile population. The returnees who actually returned to the public sector (six of our interviewees were university researchers) argued that gaining a permanent teaching or research position for scientists from "outside" is still way too difficult, the level of internationalisation and internal cooperation is too limited, and research agenda in humanities is too self-centred on national topics. On the other hand, some migrants returned in response to public sector initiatives, such as the programme for young professionals "Create for Lithuania", EU-supported research grants, and the FDI policy that helped to attract some large employers of highly qualified employees (such as the IT unit of the Barclays bank). Our research also showed the continuing demand for "traditional" migration policy measures such as informing the returnees and helping their children to integrate into the system of secondary education. ; Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjama, ar užsienyje įgytos žinios ir įgūdžiai padeda į Lietuvą sugrįžusiems aukštos kvalifikacijos specialistams įsitvirtinti Lietuvos darbo rinkoje. Aukštos kvalifikacijos terminas gali turėti daug reikšmių; šiame tekste aukštos kvalifikacijos asmenimis vadinami tie, kurie turi aukštąjį išsimokslinimą ir užsienyje dirbo jų kvalifikaciją atitinkančius darbus. Turint omenyje, kad išvyksta ir grįžta labai skirtingų profesijų asmenys, santykinai daugiau dėmesio skirta tiems, kurie sugrįžo į verslo sektorių (ypač – informacinių technologijų ir finansinių paslaugų sritį), mokslininkams ir užsienyje studijas baigusiems asmenims, dalyvavusiems "Kurk Lietuvai" programoje. Siekiant atsakyti į pagrindinį tyrimo klausimą, išnagrinėta, ar profesiniai motyvai buvo svarbūs priimant sprendimą dėl sugrįžimo, ar užsienyje įgytos žinios ir įgūdžiai buvo naudingi susirandant darbą ir dirbant Lietuvoje ir kokie struktūriniai veiksniai padeda sugrįžusiesiems įsitvirtinti arba kelia daugiausia nusivylimo. Išvadų dalyje pateikiami pasiūlymai dėl valstybės politikos siekiant paskatinti aukštos kvalifikacijos asmenų sugrįžimą.
While the concepts of brain drain and brain waste are frequently used to analyse migration from Central and Eastern Europe, this paper starts with an assumption that mobile workers usually gain important skills and knowledge which may help them to return and integrate into the labour market of the home country. Furthermore, this paper focusses on a very specific group for whom the above-mentioned effect is all the more likely: the highly qualified migrants defined narrowly as people with high education who held qualified jobs when working abroad. In this paper, the above-mentioned assumption is tested empirically, drawing on a number of surveys (representative surveys of Lithuanian residents, employers and returnees, a survey of graduates of the "Create for Lithuania" programme, an internet-based survey of highly qualified returnees) and interviews. We found that professional aims (such as the intention to take advantage of their skills and knowledge) were very important reasons for return, although they worked in parallel with broader family and home-sickness motives. In addition, around 2/3 of returnees in our sample mentioned that they wanted to contribute to the progress of Lithuania, and the majority of them agreed that they succeeded in doing that. The data also showed that most of the returnees in our target group were able to find employment without major difficulties. The majority of respondents indicated that skills and knowledge they gained abroad were very useful both for finding a job and pursuing a further career. We identified a number of structural factors that sometimes help and sometimes hinder the integration of the returnees. The returnees did take into consideration the improving economic outlook of the country (while many EU countries have been stagnating) and a rather high standard of the quality of life (in Vilnius). While the majority in the society and among the employers are quite sceptical about the human capital of the returnees (because they consider return as an evidence of failure), they are more receptive towards the highly qualified persons. In turn, the returnees themselves have to deal with a limited number and rather specific circle of potential employers where the appreciation of foreign experience is more likely (e. g., foreign-own companies). Furthermore, the returnees in our sample were also relatively skilled at presenting themselves and had many options for signalling their labour market credentials (such as diplomas, recommendations or brands of their foreign employers). In addition, a significant number of returnees do choose to become self-employed or start their own business. The public sector has played a contradictory role. On the one hand, the returnees were quite sceptical about the Lithuanian public sector in general (too much bureaucracy was the key criticism) and its migration policy efforts in particular. The continuous stalemate with regard to the double citizenship issue was frequently quoted as a symbol of the state being at odds with the needs of its mobile population. The returnees who actually returned to the public sector (six of our interviewees were university researchers) argued that gaining a permanent teaching or research position for scientists from "outside" is still way too difficult, the level of internationalisation and internal cooperation is too limited, and research agenda in humanities is too self-centred on national topics. On the other hand, some migrants returned in response to public sector initiatives, such as the programme for young professionals "Create for Lithuania", EU-supported research grants, and the FDI policy that helped to attract some large employers of highly qualified employees (such as the IT unit of the Barclays bank). Our research also showed the continuing demand for "traditional" migration policy measures such as informing the returnees and helping their children to integrate into the system of secondary education.
While the concepts of brain drain and brain waste are frequently used to analyse migration from Central and Eastern Europe, this paper starts with an assumption that mobile workers usually gain important skills and knowledge which may help them to return and integrate into the labour market of the home country. Furthermore, this paper focusses on a very specific group for whom the above-mentioned effect is all the more likely: the highly qualified migrants defined narrowly as people with high education who held qualified jobs when working abroad. In this paper, the above-mentioned assumption is tested empirically, drawing on a number of surveys (representative surveys of Lithuanian residents, employers and returnees, a survey of graduates of the "Create for Lithuania" programme, an internet-based survey of highly qualified returnees) and interviews. We found that professional aims (such as the intention to take advantage of their skills and knowledge) were very important reasons for return, although they worked in parallel with broader family and home-sickness motives. In addition, around 2/3 of returnees in our sample mentioned that they wanted to contribute to the progress of Lithuania, and the majority of them agreed that they succeeded in doing that. The data also showed that most of the returnees in our target group were able to find employment without major difficulties. The majority of respondents indicated that skills and knowledge they gained abroad were very useful both for finding a job and pursuing a further career. We identified a number of structural factors that sometimes help and sometimes hinder the integration of the returnees. The returnees did take into consideration the improving economic outlook of the country (while many EU countries have been stagnating) and a rather high standard of the quality of life (in Vilnius). While the majority in the society and among the employers are quite sceptical about the human capital of the returnees (because they consider return as an evidence of failure), they are more receptive towards the highly qualified persons. In turn, the returnees themselves have to deal with a limited number and rather specific circle of potential employers where the appreciation of foreign experience is more likely (e. g., foreign-own companies). Furthermore, the returnees in our sample were also relatively skilled at presenting themselves and had many options for signalling their labour market credentials (such as diplomas, recommendations or brands of their foreign employers). In addition, a significant number of returnees do choose to become self-employed or start their own business. The public sector has played a contradictory role. On the one hand, the returnees were quite sceptical about the Lithuanian public sector in general (too much bureaucracy was the key criticism) and its migration policy efforts in particular. The continuous stalemate with regard to the double citizenship issue was frequently quoted as a symbol of the state being at odds with the needs of its mobile population. The returnees who actually returned to the public sector (six of our interviewees were university researchers) argued that gaining a permanent teaching or research position for scientists from "outside" is still way too difficult, the level of internationalisation and internal cooperation is too limited, and research agenda in humanities is too self-centred on national topics. On the other hand, some migrants returned in response to public sector initiatives, such as the programme for young professionals "Create for Lithuania", EU-supported research grants, and the FDI policy that helped to attract some large employers of highly qualified employees (such as the IT unit of the Barclays bank). Our research also showed the continuing demand for "traditional" migration policy measures such as informing the returnees and helping their children to integrate into the system of secondary education.
While the concepts of brain drain and brain waste are frequently used to analyse migration from Central and Eastern Europe, this paper starts with an assumption that mobile workers usually gain important skills and knowledge which may help them to return and integrate into the labour market of the home country. Furthermore, this paper focusses on a very specific group for whom the above-mentioned effect is all the more likely: the highly qualified migrants defined narrowly as people with high education who held qualified jobs when working abroad. In this paper, the above-mentioned assumption is tested empirically, drawing on a number of surveys (representative surveys of Lithuanian residents, employers and returnees, a survey of graduates of the "Create for Lithuania" programme, an internet-based survey of highly qualified returnees) and interviews. We found that professional aims (such as the intention to take advantage of their skills and knowledge) were very important reasons for return, although they worked in parallel with broader family and home-sickness motives. In addition, around 2/3 of returnees in our sample mentioned that they wanted to contribute to the progress of Lithuania, and the majority of them agreed that they succeeded in doing that. The data also showed that most of the returnees in our target group were able to find employment without major difficulties. The majority of respondents indicated that skills and knowledge they gained abroad were very useful both for finding a job and pursuing a further career. We identified a number of structural factors that sometimes help and sometimes hinder the integration of the returnees. The returnees did take into consideration the improving economic outlook of the country (while many EU countries have been stagnating) and a rather high standard of the quality of life (in Vilnius). While the majority in the society and among the employers are quite sceptical about the human capital of the returnees (because they consider return as an evidence of failure), they are more receptive towards the highly qualified persons. In turn, the returnees themselves have to deal with a limited number and rather specific circle of potential employers where the appreciation of foreign experience is more likely (e. g., foreign-own companies). Furthermore, the returnees in our sample were also relatively skilled at presenting themselves and had many options for signalling their labour market credentials (such as diplomas, recommendations or brands of their foreign employers). In addition, a significant number of returnees do choose to become self-employed or start their own business. The public sector has played a contradictory role. On the one hand, the returnees were quite sceptical about the Lithuanian public sector in general (too much bureaucracy was the key criticism) and its migration policy efforts in particular. The continuous stalemate with regard to the double citizenship issue was frequently quoted as a symbol of the state being at odds with the needs of its mobile population. The returnees who actually returned to the public sector (six of our interviewees were university researchers) argued that gaining a permanent teaching or research position for scientists from "outside" is still way too difficult, the level of internationalisation and internal cooperation is too limited, and research agenda in humanities is too self-centred on national topics. On the other hand, some migrants returned in response to public sector initiatives, such as the programme for young professionals "Create for Lithuania", EU-supported research grants, and the FDI policy that helped to attract some large employers of highly qualified employees (such as the IT unit of the Barclays bank). Our research also showed the continuing demand for "traditional" migration policy measures such as informing the returnees and helping their children to integrate into the system of secondary education.
Based on the findings of a large-scale, comparative research project, this book systematically assesses the institutional design and national influence of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) on Social Inclusion and Social Protection, at the European Union (EU) level and in ten EU Member States. Besides offering novel empirical and theoretical insights into the operation and impact of the OMC, the book presents an up-to-date perspective on the future of social policy coordination within the Europe 2020 Strategy. The book is required reading for anyone concerned with understanding the contribution of new forms of governance to the past and future development of Social Europe.
Previous studies of policy reforms that were undertaken during the recent global financial crisis mostly focused on fiscal consolidation, with much less attention paid to other structural reforms. Although the impact of such external shocks as crisis or change of government on systemic change is widely acknowledged, little agreement exists on which intervening factors can best account for successes or failures of reform commitments. In this article, we propose an innovative explanation that focuses on the variables of political attention and change leadership, and which analyses temporal political and policy dynamics of reform decision making. We conduct a comparative analysis of the four performance priorities of the 2008–2012 Lithuanian Government led by Prime Minister A. Kubilius. The article concludes that a combination of persistent high political attention to policy reforms and strong reform leadership aimed at mobilising coalition support are essential factors in fulfilling reform commitments.
Implementation of government commitments is one of the most relevant issues of public policy studies. A gap between electoral pledges, government priorities and their practical execution brought disappointment in many democratic countries and attracted significant attention from public policy researchers. This article elaborates a theoretical framework and sets several hypotheses for analysing the process of implementing performance priorities of the Lithuanian government and achieving their results. It argues that public policy decisions can be best explained by the interaction of advocacy coalitions in different policy subsystems. This process is affected by various external factors and events, which are usually an important but not sufficient condition for realising policy commitments. Within policy subsystems, it is necessary to assess beliefs, resources, and behavioural strategies of advocacy coalitions, coordination among different competing coalitions, leadership of policy change, performance management and policy learning during the implementation process. Also, in order to understand the execution of political priorities, it is important to take into account such important factors as the level of policy ambition and political attention throughout implementation. Moreover, any assessment of Lithuanian policy implementation should address such country-specific issues as fragmentation in the Lithuanian party system and competition between two blocs of political parties, the influence of the EU and Russia on the public policy process, and reform constraints imposed by decisions of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court. This theoretical approach will be employed for explaining the implementation of six major performance priorities of the Lithuanian Government 15 led by Prime Minister A. Kubilius: (1) preparations to build the Visaginas nuclear power plant; (2) higher education reform; (3) civil service reform; (4) restructuring the network of personal health care organisations; (5) structural reform of the social sector, and (6) execution of the housing renovation programme. A public policy research agenda focused on the analysis of government commitments can be also applied to assessing how specific political priorities or other policy decisions are carried out in Lithuania and other democratic states, as well as to explaining successes and failures of their implementation process. Causal process tracing can be employed for the within-case and between-case analysis of policy studies. Theoretically developed and empirically rich policy studies following this research agenda would provide interesting insights on policy implementation to researchers, politicians, civil servants, various policy stakeholders, and even citizens. ; Vyriausybių įsipareigojimų įgyvendinimas yra vienas aktualiausių viešosios politikos proceso tyrimų klausimų. Atotrūkis tarp rinkimų kampanijos metu deklaruojamų, vyriausybių programose įtvirtinamų prioritetų ir praktinio jų įgyvendinimo yra tapęs nusivylimo šaltiniu daugelyje demokratinių šalių ir susilaukęs išskirtinio tyrėjų dėmesio. Šiame straipsnyje pristatomi viešosios politikos prioritetų tyrimo klausimai, teorinis analizės pagrindas ir hipotezės, skirti Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės veiklos prioritetų įgyvendinimo procesui ir jų rezultatams analizuoti. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad geriausiai viešosios politikos kaitos sprendimus gali paaiškinti viešosios politikos posistemiuose vykstanti palaikymo koalicijų sąveika. Jai įtaką daro įvairūs išorės veiksniai ir įvykiai (jie pristatomi straipsnyje), taip pat tokie tarpiniai veiksniai kaip viešosios politikos kaitai reikalingo sutarimo laipsnis ir politinis dėmesys. Be to, analizuojant viešosios politikos įsipareigojimų įgyvendinimą Lietuvoje, reikia atsižvelgti į specifinius veiksnius, kaip antai partinės sistemos fragmentaciją ir konkurenciją tarp dviejų politinių partijų blokų, taip pat Europos Sąjungos ir Rusijos įtaką viešosios politikos procese ar Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo sprendimų apribojimus reformoms. Šiame straipsnyje pristatoma viešosios politikos proceso tyrimų darbotvarkė gali būti taikoma analizuojant įvairių (prioritetinių ir neprioritetinių) viešosios politikos įsipareigojimų įgyvendinimo procesą ir aiškinant jų sėkmes bei nesėkmes. Tam gali būti naudinga pasitelkti priežastinį proceso sekimą, kuris gali būti taikomas tiek analizuojant pavienius atvejus, tiek kartu nagrinėjant visus pasirinktus atvejus.
