From Departure to Non-Return:Factors Influencing Talented Youth Migration
Most young people like where they're from. Far fewer think it has anything to offer them. A survey of 51 respondents aged 15–25 on why young people leave their hometowns — and what would actually bring them back.
Research by
Hafiza Rabia Sadaqat
Research Coordinator, Eunoia and Beyond
Aradhya Sharma
Research Associate, Eunoia and Beyond
Published
20 September 2026
Abstract
This study investigates the multifaceted factors driving young people to migrate from their hometowns and the subsequent conditions that influence their decisions against returning. Utilizing a descriptive research design, the study analyzes survey data from 51 respondents aged 15 to 25 to evaluate their perceptions of local opportunities compared to external prospects. The findings reveal a significant dichotomy: while 72% of respondents maintain a positive general perception of their hometowns, 64% rate the local opportunities and conditions as poor or very poor. Quality of life emerged as the single most frequently cited primary reason for considering leaving (37.3%), narrowly ahead of career opportunities (35.3%) and higher income (15.7%), while education (94.1%) and salary/income (92.2%) received the highest combined importance ratings of any factors measured. Respondents’ willingness to return, asked as a separate question, was notably split: 37.3% indicated they would definitely return, while 33.3% indicated their return depended on circumstances. Lower salaries, a lack of suitable jobs, better opportunities elsewhere, and lower quality of life relative to the destination were identified as the primary barriers to return, closely mirroring the reasons given for leaving. Ultimately, the research highlights that youth migration represents a strategic search for professional, economic, and personal development rather than a fundamental rejection of origin communities. The study suggests that to retain and re-attract young people, local development policies must concurrently address economic viability and broader quality-of-life improvements.
At a glance — each figure with its own base
72%
like their hometown
rated it good or very good, in general
Table 2 · n = 50
64%
rate its opportunities poor
the same people, asked a different question
Table 2 · n = 50
37.3%
quality of life first
19 of 51 named it their main reason to consider leaving
Table 4 · N = 51
33.3%
would return — it depends
17 of 51 said return depends on circumstances; another 19 said definitely yes
Table 5a · N = 51
How it was done
The method.
- Design
- Descriptive, survey-based
- Sample
- N = 51 (n = 50 on some items)
- Eligibility
- Aged 15–25 — no screen for talent
- Sampling
- Non-probability convenience
- Instrument
- Closed- and open-ended questionnaire
- Analysis
- Descriptive statistics + thematic coding
The questionnaire was distributed through the researcher’s personal and social networks. Convenience sampling means the findings describe these respondents’ perceptions, not the population of young people generally.
Why the base changes. The paper’s original dataset held 50 responses; a 51st was validated after that dataset had been compiled, and demographic information for it was not available. The paper therefore reports the demographic profile, hometown perceptions (Table 2), intention to leave and the open-ended responses on n = 50, and the reasons for leaving, importance ratings, willingness to return and barriers to return (Tables 4–5b) on N = 51. Each chart below states its own base. Of the 50, 56% were aged 15–17, 36% 18–20 and 8% 21–25; 54% were school students, 44% college or university students, and one respondent was employed.
Why some percentages repeat. With 51 respondents, the same number of people always gives the same percentage: 19 of 51 is 37.3% whether it counts those naming quality of life as their main reason to leave (Table 4) or those who would definitely return (Table 5a). Likewise 17 of 51 is 33.3%, 18 is 35.3% and 14 is 27.5%. A repeated figure is a coincidence of counts, not the same finding.
On “talented youth.” The paper frames its subject as talented youth — young people with notable qualifications, skills or achievement. Respondents were not selected on that basis: the only eligibility criterion was age, and the paper states participants were not chosen for academic achievement or profession. This page therefore describes them simply as young people.
Findings
What 51 people actually said.
They like the place. They don’t rate its prospects.
Asked about their hometown in general, 36 of 50 respondents (72%) rated it good or very good. Asked about the opportunities and conditions available there — the same town, a different question — that dropped to 18 respondents (36%), with 32 (64%) rating them poor or very poor.
That gap is the paper’s central finding. Wanting to leave is not the same as disliking home. Of the same 50 respondents, three-quarters still lived in their hometown and 60% had lived there their whole lives.
Table 2
Perception of the hometown vs. its opportunities
Share rating each good or very good — n = 50
| Item | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| The hometown, in general | 72% (36) |
| Its opportunities and conditions | 36% (18) |
Quality of life edges out the paycheque.
Asked for the single most important reason they would consider leaving, 19 of 51 respondents (37.3%) named quality of life, narrowly ahead of career opportunities at 35.3% (18) and higher income at 15.7% (8).
Economic reasons still dominate in aggregate — career and income together account for 51.0% of primary responses. But no single economic factor outranks simply wanting a better life, which the paper reads as evidence that migration is not a purely financial calculation.
Table 4
Single most important reason to consider leaving
One answer per respondent — N = 51
| Item | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Quality of life | 37.3% (19) |
| Career opportunities | 35.3% (18) |
| Higher income | 15.7% (8) |
| Other / not specified | 11.8% (6) |
Note. The 37.3% here counts reasons for leaving. It is not the 37.3% who would definitely return (Table 5a) — both happen to be 19 of 51.
Education is the near-universal priority.
Rated separately for importance, education drew the highest combined rating of any factor measured — 94.1% called it extremely important or important — with salary and income close behind at 92.2%.
Career opportunities, despite being the second most cited reason to leave, scored a notably lower 78.4%. The paper reads this as a layered hierarchy: education and financial security are baseline expectations across the whole sample, while career is urgent for some and not for others.
Table 4a
Rated extremely important or important
Each factor rated separately — N = 51
| Item | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Education | 94.1% (48) |
| Salary / income | 92.2% (47) |
| Career opportunities | 78.4% (40) |
Note. Remaining respondents rated each factor neutral or lower and are not shown. The paper prints 78.5% for career opportunities, the sum of its two rounded components; 40 of 51 is 78.4%.
Lifestyle leads the secondary reasons too.
Behind their primary reason, respondents named lifestyle most often (39.2%), then the social environment (19.6%) and family circumstances (13.7%). Alongside the quality-of-life result, that puts non-economic factors at the front of both tiers of the question.
Table 4b
Secondary push factors
Responses total 100% — N = 51
| Item | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Lifestyle | 39.2% (20) |
| Social environment | 19.6% (10) |
| Family circumstances | 13.7% (7) |
| Other / not specified | 27.5% (14) |
Return is conditional, not foreclosed.
Asked whether they would return to their hometown, only 6 of 51 respondents (11.8%) ruled it out entirely. 19 (37.3%) said they definitely would, and another 17 (33.3%) said it depends on circumstances — which is the group local policy can actually move.
Table 5a
Willingness to return to the hometown
One answer per respondent — N = 51
| Item | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Definitely yes | 37.3% (19) |
| Depends on circumstances | 33.3% (17) |
| Unsure / not specified | 17.6% (9) |
| Definitely no | 11.8% (6) |
Note. These figures answer the return question only. The matching 37.3% in Table 4 is a different question that also drew 19 of 51.
In their own words
Asked what conditions could encourage talented young people to return to their hometowns (open-ended)
“better options of careers”
“more freedom from their family”
The barriers to coming back are the reasons for leaving.
Lower salaries (35.3%), no suitable jobs (31.4%), better opportunities elsewhere (29.4%) and a lower quality of life than the destination (27.5%) were the most cited obstacles to return.
The same domains — income, employment, quality of life — appear on both sides of the migration decision. The paper takes this to mean non-return is an ongoing comparison between two places rather than a verdict on one of them.
Table 5b
Primary barriers to return
Multiple answers allowed — N = 51
| Item | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Lower salaries | 35.3% (18) |
| Lack of suitable jobs | 31.4% (16) |
| Better opportunities elsewhere | 29.4% (15) |
| Lower quality of life | 27.5% (14) |
Note. Multiple responses were allowed, so these do not sum to 100%.
Recommendations
What would actually help.
Nine proposals drawn from the findings — aimed at local government, employers, schools and the community organisations in between. They are possible actions based on what respondents said, not guaranteed fixes.
- 01
Create better employment opportunities
Internships, entry-level roles, entrepreneurship programs, career fairs, and partnerships between local institutions and local businesses — so that migration stops being the only route to a career.
- 02
Provide better salaries and career growth
Better-paying jobs with visible promotion paths, skills training, mentorship, certifications and meaningful projects. Limited income with no advancement is its own push factor.
- 03
Strengthen education and professional development
Quality education, career counselling, technical training and internships close to home, supported by partnerships with universities, online platforms and professional bodies.
- 04
Improve infrastructure and healthcare
Transport, internet access, healthcare, public services and recreational facilities. Infrastructure recurred throughout the open-ended responses as a condition for return.
- 05
Improve safety and quality of life
The single most cited reason for leaving, the most cited secondary factor, and one of the biggest barriers to return — all point at the same thing, and none of them are jobs.
- 06
Establish talent-recognition and mentoring programs
Career counselling, professional mentorship, youth leadership schemes, local innovation competitions and awards, so ability is visibly valued where it already lives.
- 07
Include young people in local development planning
Youth consultations, surveys, student councils and community forums — so development answers what young people actually said, not what was assumed about them.
- 08
Maintain connections with those who leave
Alumni networks, online professional groups, mentorship, return visits and local investment routes. Migration does not have to end the relationship.
- 09
Encourage return and reintegration
Returnee employment support, startup assistance, recognition of qualifications and housing guidance — aimed squarely at the third of respondents (33.3%) whose return “depends on circumstances.”
Conclusion
Leaving isn't the same as giving up on home.
Youth migration is a complex process shaped by the relationship between young people’s attachment to their hometowns and their perceptions of local socioeconomic opportunities. Considering migration does not necessarily indicate dissatisfaction with the hometown itself.
Young people may value their communities, families and culture while also believing that other places offer better opportunities.
Quality of life, career opportunities and income were the most frequently identified primary reasons for considering leaving, with quality of life narrowly the most cited (37.3%, 19 of 51). Education received the highest combined importance rating of any factor measured (94.1%), ahead of salary and income (92.2%). Migration considerations are shaped by economic and non-economic factors in roughly equal measure.
The findings also indicate that migration may not represent permanent separation. Willingness to return, asked separately, was split — 37.3% definitely yes, 33.3% conditional, 11.8% ruled out — and the most cited barriers closely mirrored the reasons for leaving, suggesting non-return reflects an ongoing comparative assessment of opportunity rather than a rejection of home.
The study does not establish that these factors cause migration, or that improving them would automatically keep young people in place. The findings rest on the perceptions of 51 respondents, most of them school or university students, and therefore describe anticipated intentions rather than confirmed behaviour.
Addressing youth migration requires more than encouraging young people to stay. Policymakers, employers, institutions and local stakeholders should work toward hometowns that offer meaningful employment, education, professional development, infrastructure, safety, healthcare and quality of life — so that staying, or coming back, stops costing young people their future.
The whole thing
60 pages, footnotes and all.
Literature review, full methodology, every table, the discussion and the complete reference list. Free to read, quote and cite.
Cite this paper
Sadaqat, H. R., & Sharma, A. (2026). From Departure to Non-Return: Factors Influencing Talented Youth Migration. Eunoia and Beyond.
APA 7th
Selected references — 14 of the paper's full list+
- International Labour Organization. (2013, August 9). Why do young people migrate? ilo.org
- International Labour Organization. (2015). Youth and rural development.
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2016). Youth and migration.
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2013). World Youth Report 2013: Youth and migration.
- International Organization for Migration. (2024). World migration report 2024.
- Cassarino, J.-P. (2004). Theorising return migration: A revisited conceptual approach to return migrants. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2), 253–279.
- Stark, O., & Bloom, D. E. (1985). The new economics of labor migration. American Economic Review, 75(2), 173–178.
- Stark, O., Helmenstein, C., & Leitner, S. (1997). A behavioral foundation of return migration: The case of the brain drain. Journal of Development Economics, 53(2), 363–382.
- Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (2012). Globalization, brain drain, and development. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(3), 681–730.
- Levitt, P. (1998). Social remittances: Migration-driven local-level forms of cultural diffusion. International Migration Review, 32(4), 926–948.
- Ivlevs, A., Nikolova, M., & Graham, C. (2019). Emigration, remittances, and the subjective well-being of those staying behind. Journal of Population Economics, 32(1), 113–151.
- Sano, Y., Hillier, C., Haan, M., & Zarifa, D. (2020). Youth migration in the context of rural brain drain: Longitudinal evidence from Canada. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 15(4), 100–119.
- Sowl, S., Smith, R. A., & Brown, M. G. (2022). Rural college graduates: Who comes home? Rural Sociology, 87(1), 303–329.
- Canedo, A. P. (2025). A tale of two homecomings: The fragmented reintegration of first- and 1.5-generation returnees in Mexico. Comparative Migration Studies, 13(54), 1–25.
The complete reference list is in the PDF.