Returning Diaspora Members as “Vernacularizing Agents of Social Change” and Transnational “Diaspora Mobilizers” – The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Return migration literature has devoted considerable attention (Bovenkerk, 1974; King, 1978; Gmelch, 1980; Portes, 1999) to the opportunities and limitations for returnees to act as agents of change. Some authors are hopeful about the returnees catalyzing positive social change in the home state, while others are much more skeptical. As van Houte (2016) aptly summarizes, the expectations of returnees to be agents of change in home societies derive from a number of factors: higher levels of education, human capital and skills acquired during their time abroad as well as their “in-between” position allowing them to bridge transnational differences, facilitate knowledge transfers between the home and host states and thus enable social change (King 1978; Portes 1999). On a policy level, international prescriptions on diaspora engagement (Agunias & Newland, 2012) stipulate the need for encouraging diasporic human capital transfers and discuss meaningful and non-conflicting ways on how these could be conducted in practice, such as the need to create balanced incentives which would allow for local talent to connect with diaspora networks without feeling displaced or threatened by them. However, as van Houte (2016) points out, despite the existing and acknowledged potential (emphasis added) for returnees to act as agents of change, there are a number of challenges already explored within the return migration literature, such as: social stratification leading to exclusion and potential for conflict between the returnees and the rest of the home state population, as well as the somewhat questionable actual willingness and capabilities of returnees to affect existing structures in their home states. In reality, the returnees are not operating in a vacuum, and in fact, to some extent become part of the home state’s structures upon return. Thus, two questions (van Houte, 2016) are raised: Can the returnees’ “in-between” position and transnational connectedness offer them a degree of independence necessary to reform home state structures (Portes 1999)? Alternatively, is a facilitating economic and institutional structure a necessary prerequisite for social change (Castles et al. 2014)? In addition, the complex process of reintegration calls for the development of specific strategies (Kuschminder, 2017), the success of which ultimately determines the sustainability of return (Black et al., 2004). The concept of “vernacularization”, introduced by Levitt & Merry (2009) and extensively discussed in Kuschminder (2017), is the process of translating and adapting internationally relevant phenomena to a local context. Finally, as Horst et al. (2010) emphasize, for diasporic transfers of human capital to be successful considerable resources need to be devoted to capacity building among diaspora and transnational networks. By looking at the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country with one of the highest net emigration rates in the world (Collyer, 2013) the research question posed by this paper is: to what extent can returning diaspora members act as “vernacularizing agents of change” and what are the unique advantages of their positioning in transnational networks to further mobilize diaspora members in homeland politics?