Every month, remittance figures dominate Nepal’s newspapers and online portals after the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) releases updates on the country’s macroeconomic and financial situation. Remittances have become the country’s largest source of foreign exchange, surpassing foreign aid, direct investment, and private capital inflows combined. The state coffers swell and the “success story” of migration continues. Yet, behind these impressive numbers lies a persistent policy gap: the very Nepali migrant workers who fuel this inflow often vanish from view once they return home.
In the early 2000s, Nepal received less than Rs 100 billion in remittance annually. That figure grew steadily over the next two decades. It crossed Rs 500 billion in fiscal year 2013/14 and reached a record Rs 1.4 trillion in 2023/24.
An analysis of the remittance-to-GDP ratio in the last two and half decades shows a remarkable increase over the years. While remittances were equal to 10.7 percent of Nepal’s GDP in 2000/01, the ratio surpassed 11 percent in 2001/02, crossed 20 percent in 2008/09, and was 25.3 percent in 2023/24, according to the recently released ‘Nepal Labour Migration Report 2024’.
The impact at the household level is equally significant. In 2023, 35.6 percent of Nepali households received remittance. The average annual amount per remitter stood at Rs 185,852. While debates around failure to utilisation of remittance exist, these flows have helped reduce poverty, improved access to education and increased household savings and asset ownership. But the policy lens remains narrow.
Migration Seen Only as Departure
Nepal’s labour migration governance is largely departure-focused. It prioritises foreign employment approvals and tracking remittance inflows. What it fails to do is plan for return, observers say.
They argue that migrant workers are neglected across the migration cycle. This includes pre-departure, employment abroad as well as reintegration.
Reintegration is not simply about return, but about dignity. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), reintegration includes acceptance by family and community, access to opportunities at home and the ability to use skills, experience, and knowledge acquired abroad.
There is, however, debate in the very terminology. In Nepal, reintegration has often been treated as “re-inclusion” or “re-incorporation”. But many observers argue that Nepal’s reintegration policies and programmes have been ‘capital-focused’, ignoring the humane side. Reintegration must enable a returnee to settle physically, psychologically and economically in the previous or a better condition, they say, stressing that this dimension is largely missing in practice.
Return migration is substantial. It is also poorly understood.
In fiscal years 2022/23 and 2023/24, 771,319 and 741,297 new and renewed labour approvals were issued, respectively. During the same period, more than half a million migrants returned to Nepal each year, according to the latest labour migration report. This includes both temporary and permanent returnees, which highlights the circular nature of Nepali labour migration.
Not all returns are planned. Many are forced. A 2024 study under the Reintegration of Returnee Migrant Workers (ReMi) Project surveyed 1,407 returnees in Koshi and Madhesh provinces. More than one-third cited contract violations as the reason for return. Others reported non-payment of salary, lack of work, or excessive workloads. Nineteen percent returned due to distress. Reasons included illness, injury, and deportation.
These returnees arrive home without preparation, often without savings and support.
Nearly half of the surveyed returnees planned to pursue livelihoods in Nepal, but most could not. They lacked capital, networks and institutional support.
Many migrants acquire skills in construction, hospitality, manufacturing, and services. Yet studies show most returnees end up in subsistence farming or daily wage labour. Many remain unemployed. Re-migration remains the default option.
(Source: Nepal Labour Migration Report 2024)
The Labour Migration Report 2024 cites data from the Safer Migration (SaMi) Programme. Of the 41,659 returnee migrant workers, less than three percent invested their earnings in a business.
With difficulty in getting funding, bureaucratic hurdles and fragmented policy support, entrepreneurship opportunities are rare.
Female migrant workers face additional barriers. Their return is often moralised. Communities scrutinise their behaviour. Families question their character. Stigma deepens if they return without savings.
This scrutiny intensifies for women who return involuntarily. Or those who experience exploitation or trauma. Access to reintegration services remains unequal. Structural discrimination persists.
The government has launched several initiatives. But, their impact remains limited.
The ReMi Project began in 2022. It is implemented with support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. It operates in 20 municipalities in Koshi and Madhesh. The project aims to support social, economic, and cultural reintegration.
The K-HaMi Project targets returnees from South Korea. It focuses on entrepreneurship and stable reintegration.
A five-year project with JICA began in 2023. It focuses on career development and entrepreneurship support, says the Labour Migration Report.
Despite these efforts, outcomes remain modest.
A Policy Conversation Long Overdue
On December 19, a national consultation on “Return and Reintegration” was held in Kathmandu. It was organised by the National Network for Safe Migration (NNSM), an umbrella network of civil society organisations working on labour migration and development. The event was held under the Reintegrate project.
Speakers stressed the need for a shift in approach.
Nilambar Badal, Programme Officer at NNSM, was direct. He said Nepal’s reintegration policy remains capital-focused rather than people-centred.
“The target should not be centred on utilising the capital, skills and knowledge returnees bring home,” he said. “It should be about creating an environment where they can settle with dignity no matter what circumstances they return home.”
Reintegration must address physical, emotional, and economic needs, he added.
Speakers highlighted common challenges such as difficulties in skill certification, limited access to finance, high expectations from family and society, stigmatisation of mental health concerns and weak community engagement.
Badal called for a phase-wise approach, emphasising decentralised implementation and prioritising gender and social inclusion. Improving monitoring and evaluation and leveraging technology should also be a key focus, he added.
PhD researcher Rojika Maharjan presented findings from a 2023 study, titled “Identifying and addressing stigma of returned migrants: Insights from Nepal’s reintegration governance actors”.
Covering Kathmandu, Dhankuta, Triyuga Municipality, and Sangurigadhi, it included interviews with 54 returnees and 42 stakeholders. The study examined stigmatising narratives associated with returnee migrant workers in Nepal and how they obstructed their reintegration into society.The analysis was based on interviews with 42 key stakeholders conducted in 2023 under the Reintegrate project.
Maharjan stressed a long standing inequality between the migrant workers – who are often seen as a poorer section – and expats – who go to the developed Western countries.
Most of the migrant workers are often humiliated, dehumanised and discriminated against in their home and destination countries.
The research identified three dominant stigmatising narratives.
1. ‘Labourer’ (Shramik)
This stigma is commonly associated with returnees from the Middle East and Malaysia. They are portrayed primarily as manual labourers who worked under others’ control in jobs regarded as “low-status”. Even those who returned from better-paid or skilled positions find their overseas work experience undervalued. Such returnees are often labelled as unskilled, incapable, or socially backward. As long as these perceptions persist, many returnees feel ashamed to share their migration experiences, Maharjan added. Some avoid posting about their departure or return on social media and keep their migration history secret, even within their families.
2. ‘Decayed’, ‘spoiled’ or ‘impure’
This stigma is particularly directed at women returnee migrants. They are often viewed as morally degraded, assumed to have been abused, exploited, or involved in sexual activities abroad. Such perceptions lead families and communities to view them with suspicion, shame and distrust. These narratives reinforce patriarchal attitudes embedded in policies framed in the name of preventing trafficking and exploitation. Even when women return due to irregular migration or physical, mental, or economic hardship, they face direct social exclusion based on assumptions of sexual exploitation. “There is a perceived notion that women migrant workers go through some kind of harassment abroad,” said Maharjan.
3. ‘Mad’ or mentally unstable
This stigma is linked to assumptions about mental health problems among returnees. It reflects insensitive responses to trauma, psychological distress and disorientation caused by abusive migration experiences. Returnees with mental health challenges are often viewed as dangerous or abnormal. Feelings of loneliness or alienation after returning are frequently interpreted as unstable behaviour. Such stigma creates barriers to accessing mental health services and social acceptance.
Responses to stigma and emerging good practices
1. Development of alternative terminology
Stakeholders who participated in the study rejected the use of the term ‘Shramik’ for returnee migrants, opting instead for neutral terms such as ‘returnee migrants’. However, several participants at the consultation argued that ‘Shramik’ refers to all categories of workers. They said the priority should be to raise awareness around the term and challenge its stigmatised interpretation, rather than replacing it altogether.
2. Redefining classifications of returnee migrant workers
Stakeholders are broadening definitions to recognise diverse migration experiences and challenge stigma. For example, Dhankuta Municipality removed strict documentation requirements and adopted more flexible screening to identify beneficiaries. This made reintegration support more inclusive, particularly for women who often hide their status due to fear of exclusion.
3. Facilitating networks of returnee migrant workers
As a strategy to reduce stigma, reintegration actors have supported the formation of networks of returnee migrant workers. These networks foster a shared identity and a sense of belonging. They organise returnees around common goals beyond conventional reintegration programmes.
Maharjan said the study points to the need for stigma-sensitive reintegration governance. “How to reintegrate returnee migrant workers is yet to be discussed in detail in Nepal,” she said.
Notably, Maharjan’s ongoing research focuses on the stigmatisation of returnee migrant workers based on their migration experiences.
Nepal’s labour migration system continues to prioritise departure and ignores return. As Maharjan and other speakers noted, reintegration remains poorly conceptualised.
Until reintegration is treated as a core policy priority, not an add-on, the cycle will persist. Migration will remain a necessity. Return will remain a crisis. And dignity will remain elusive for those who built the economy from abroad.
you need to login before leave a comment
Write a Comment
Comments
No comments yet.