| Literature DB >> 34831848 |
Yuan Tang1, Tara Rava Zolnikov1,2.
Abstract
As the world has become more interconnected due to the invention and innovation of communication and transportation technologies, more individuals than ever before have been able to travel long distances. In recent years, a growing number of physically able adults in late adulthood have chosen to move across national borders to less costly countries in order to obtain better quality of life upon reaching retirement age. In light of this under-researched but increasingly popular retirement trajectory, this research aimed to provide more insight into the opportunities and challenges that international retired migrants have encountered while retiring abroad. Through the lens of humanistic theory, this research employed a systematic review of research literature, the majority of which were peer-reviewed studies published within the last five years. The reviewed studies (n = 22) conducted spanned four out of seven continents, with heavy emphasis on Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Research results indicated that many of the international retired migrants took advantage of the opportunities of pleasant weather, lower cost of living, and various amenities offered by their host countries to enhance their quality of life by engaging in an active and meaningful lifestyle. However, language barriers, lack of social support, rising healthcare costs, increases in the cost of living, uncertain political climate, and different healthcare practices in their host countries, presented considerable challenges to many international retirees.Entities:
Keywords: amenity migration; climate migration; economic migration; lifestyle migration; long-stay tourism; retirement abroad; retirement migration
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34831848 PMCID: PMC8625361 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182212093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Systematic review PRISMA flow diagram.
International Retirement Migration Flow.
| Source | Migration Flow | Article Type | Topic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| From | To | |||
| Bender, Horn and Schweppe, 2017 | Germans and Swiss | Thailand | Qualitative | Interview six old age care facilities |
| Benson and O’Reilly, 2018 | Global North Retirees | Malaysia and Panama | Theoretical | Impact of IRM to the receiving countries |
| Botterill, 2016 | Britain | Thailand | Qualitative | Interview 20 participants, between 50 to 70 years of age |
| Croucher, 2015 | Global North | Global South | Theoretical | Impact of IRM to the receiving countries |
| Gambold, 2018 | U.S | Mexico | Qualitative | Interview 78 participants between 2009–2010 and 2014–2015 |
| Britain | France and Spain | |||
| Gehring, 2019 | Dutch and Spanish | Dutch and Spanish | Qualitative | 86 interviews of Dutch and Spanish retirement migrants moving or returning to Spain and Dutch and Dutch-Turkish retirement migrants moving or returning to Turkey after retirement |
| Dutch-Turkish | Turkey | |||
| Gustafson and Cardozo, 2017 | Scandinavian | Spain | Qualitative | Interview 34 participants (14 Scandinavian retirees aged between 66 and 81 and 20 local residents) |
| Hall and Hardill, 2016 | Britain | Spain | Qualitative | Interview 9 males and 16 females, averaged age was 78.25 |
| Hamilton, 2015 | Europeans, Americans, and Maltese | Malta | Qualitative | Interview 7 participants (2 males and 5 females aged between 51 and 75) |
| Hayes, 2018 | N. Americans | Ecuador | Theoretical | Impact of IRM to the receiving countries |
| Horn and Schweppe, 2017 | Global North | Global South | Theoretical | Transnational aging |
| Kline, 2013 | Amenity migrants | Ecuador | Qualitative | Impact of IRM to the receiving countries |
| Kohno et al., 2016 | Japan | Malaysia | Qualitative | Interview 38 participants (30 Japanese, 16 males and 14 females, aged from 54 to 79 years and 8 medical services providers) |
| Lardiés-Bosque, 2016 | U.S. | Mexico | Qualitative | Interview 29 participants (15 males and 14 females, aged from 55 to 75 and older) |
| Marrow and von Koppenfels, 2018 | U.S. | Global South | Theoretical | Migration aspirations |
| Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2017 | Amenity/lifestyle migrants | Chile | Qualitative | Interview 46 participants (26 migrants and 22 local residents) |
| Miyashita et al., 2017 | Japan | Thailand | Qualitative | Interview 237 participants (mean age 68.8, with 79.3% of them being male) |
| Rojas et al., 2014 | U.S. | Mexico | Qualitative | Interview 375 participants (51.8 % of the subjects were male and 48.2% were female), averaged age was 68.05 years |
| Schafran and Monkkonen, 2011 | U.S. | Mexico | Theoretical | Impact of IRM to the receiving countries |
| Toyota and Xiang, 2012 | Japan | Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia | Theoretical | Interview 50 participants in Chiang Mai (Thailand), Penang (Malaysia), Cebu (the Philippines) and Bali (Indonesia) |
| Vega, 2015 | Latin American | Retirees return to their birth countries from the U.S. | Quantitative | Quantitative method using a 1% sample of the Social Security Administration’s Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) and the Numerical Identification System database (NUMIDENT) |
| Wong, Musa, and Taha, 2017 | European, American, Asian | Malaysia | Quantitative | Survey 504 participants (quantitative method, 64.3% of them aged 60 years and above) |
Pull Factors.
| Source | Pull Factors Associated with International Migration |
|---|---|
| Economic | Lower cost of living |
| Affordability of health care | |
| Affordability of housing | |
| Tax benefits | |
| Cheaper labor (domestic helping staff: maid, gardener, etc.) | |
| Investment opportunity (real estate, farming, retail business, etc.) | |
| Destination | Pleasant climate, beautiful natural and cultural environment |
| Urban amenities, such as advanced transportation infrastructures | |
| Easy access to recreation facilities for leisure, such as museums and parks | |
| Low crime rate | |
| Informal or relaxed lifestyle | |
| Same language spoken as the retired migrants’ country of origin | |
| Proximity to the retired migrants’ children and grandchildren, in order to be closer to family who may have already moved abroad | |
| People | Well-established expatriate communities with like-minded retirees |
| Friendly local residents | |
| Greater supply of skilled long-term care workers (e.g., Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines) | |
| Movement | Easy travel within the region (e.g., within EU countries, or between U.S. and Mexico) |
| Easy accessibility to friends and families in their country of origin, due to increased global mobility in the transportation sector | |
| Simple-to-obtain visa and residency status |
Push Factors.
| Source | Push Factors Associated with International Migration |
|---|---|
| Socio/Cultural Adjustment | Inability to adapt to the different culture and inability to integrate into the local community |
| Different cultural expectations, and differences in understanding and mentality in care practice | |
| Lack of social support | |
| Host country was not what the retiree had expected it to be. | |
| Financial Factors | Global economic downturn, unavailable retirement benefits |
| Healthcare Benefit | Medicare and SSI coverage |
| Political Risk | Unexpected or uncertain political changes, such as Brexit |
| Healthcare Approaches | Differences in medical systems and healthcare services between retiree’s country of origin and the host country. For example, the medical systems and healthcare services in Malaysia differ from those in Japan. |
Impact of International Retirement Migration on the Receiving Countries.
|
| Even though the migrants helped job creation and promoted economic growth in the receiving countries, the rising real estate prices due to the influx of migrants may have placed some locals at risk of being displaced due to lack of affordability. |
|
| Migrants’ purchasing power gave them the opportunities to be landowners, business owners, or employers. The locals became the employees of the migrants. Therefore, social classes were created, based on social and economic status, which widened the inequality between the migrants and the locals. |
|
| Migrants resided in gated communities or apartment condos while many locals who were employed by the migrants resided in the impoverished area, which was segregated from where the migrants resided. |
|
| The receiving countries facilitated visas application, provided tax advantages, and relaxed rules for owning land and establishing business for the migrants, while the locals may not have had the same tax advantages as the migrants; therefore, the locals may have been put at a disadvantage in business competition. |
|
| Environmental degradation caused by the new real estate development resulted in pollution, especially near the coastal area. |
|
| Migration ruined the authenticity of the destination locations, including some UNESCO World Heritage sites. |