Introduction While the impacts of free trade and free capital mobility on an increasingly globalizing world have received much focus, the impact of migration has only recently been given attention. The reason for this is that compared to the international flows of money or the cross border flows of goods, the flow of people beyond their national borders have been relatively small. Unlike however capital and trade, it has been recognized that the impacts of migration are far more complicated precisely because it is people that are moving across border. People can bring money and goods, but can also bring intangibles such as culture and points-of-view. The purpose of this paper is to study the impacts of modern international migration, specifically looking at cases of circular migration, especially with its linkages to development. I will first, discuss the connections of migration and development. Afterwards, I shall then discuss circular migration: its incentives, its actors, and the triple-win scenario. Third, I shall look at specific cases of migration to discover their impacts, in areas they have done well and in what areas in they did not, and to analyze the reasons why. Finally, while compiling these reasons as well as discussing strategies, I will also use some examples from the context of Philippine migration to illustrate how these reasons and strategies can play out in the real world. Migration and Development Migration has introduced many impacts in the globalizing world. Its impact on the world can be separated into two sources – monetary and non-monetary. Monetary assistance from migration is often in the form of remittances, which are incomes earned abroad and sent back to the migrants’ home countries. As of 2007, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), estimated global remittances were at 240 billion dollars1. Most remittances are personal and targeted in nature; this means that money is sent to a specific person or household for a specific use. This characteristic of remittances makes money from it a factor on having direct effects on the recipient households, especially when the recipients are from poorer households. This is in contrast to other flows of money, like FDI and other private investments, 1
_."Sending Money Home: Trends in Migrant Remittances." Finance and Development 42, no 4 (Dec 2005)
2
which have to work through the economy and investment before affecting people (often disproportionately biased to the rich). Remittances when received by poorer households are often used for consumptions, like every day nutrition, housing or children’s education. For middleincome or rich households, remittance money can be used also for entrepreneurial purposes, such as setting up a new business or making an old business bigger. Since remittances are personal in nature, they have not only grown steadily but have been shown to increase especially in times of crisis or at times of home-country financial difficulties2. As opposed to FDI and other investments, remittances do not exacerbate but can even ameliorate the effect of business cycle downturns or market temperaments. Remittances are however not a cure-all for development through migration. Remittances as discussed, are used (especially in poorer household) for consumption uses and not for investment or long-term improvement (e.g. savings). Remittances because of its direct nature and the relatively small amounts in which they are sent (compared to FDIs and other investments) mean that these funds are inadequate to be used for a long-term development plan such as the building of infrastructure. Beyond the transfer of money, migrants can also transfer intangible goods which can be beneficial to the development of their home countries. The most common example of these intangible goods are the skills and the knowledge picked up by migrants. For instance, migrant agricultural workers from Eastern Europe who work in Greece often bring upon their return, better farming techniques3. Migrants, educated outside of their home country, also bring back differing point-of-views that can have ripple effects in the migrant’s home society. For example both Mohandas Gandhi (the Father of Indian Independence) and Jose Rizal (the Philippine National Hero) were educated abroad (in London and Madrid, respectively). Unlike remittance however, the transfer of these intangible goods is dependent on the migrants’ return to their home country. Migrants that decide to stay in their host country subsequently do not spread their new skills and
2
_."Sending Money Home: Trends in Migrant Remmittances." Finance and Development 42, no 4 (Dec 2005)
3 Angenendt, S. "Circular Migration: A Sustainable Concept for Migration Policy?." German Institute for International and Securty Affairs (June 2007)
3
knowledge. The actual picking up of these skills and knowledge is also dependent on what kind of employment the migrant has in their destination country. For example, the specific skills of a migrant who was a doctor, teacher or engineer in their home will not have improved if they worked as a taxi driver or a domestic helper. Benefits, flawed as they already are, come with cost. The migration of people for example often brings culture clash and racial tensions in the destination country, such as the case now in Europe with the influx of Muslim and North African migrants. Social unrest can also arise from labor sectors and politician that use migrants as scapegoats for rising wages, rising crime rates, or the deterioration of social welfare. Sending countries, on the other hand, suffer from what are known as brain drain and brain strain, especially when it is their highly skilled workers who migrate. Brain drain is the lack of skilled workers (such as doctors, engineers, scientists, etc.) or workers with special talents (e.g. artists). Brain strain on the other hand, is the strain in the industries dependent on the migrating talent. For instance, about 40 percent of tertiary educated Turkish and Moroccan adults and about a third of Ghana’s, have immigrated to OECD countries.4 Migrants also carry the burdens of migration. They not only have to shoulder the monetary cost of migrating, they also suffer the emotional and psychological cost of being away from their families and loved ones. Migrants are also more susceptible to abuses, when they are in a new and unfamiliar place. Circular Migration: Definition, Actors and Incentives In order to formalize my analysis of modern circular migration, I must now define circular migration by the types of movement of people. I shall also discuss the major actors of migration and their incentives for allowing and undertaking migration. For the purpose of this paper, I will define circular migration as either: A. Migration to a destination country by an individual, followed by intermittent return to their home country for investment, entrepreneurial or employment reasons. B. The migration of a person, with the intent of eventual permanent return to their home country. 4
_. 2008. “Open Up: Special Report on migration.� The Economist (Jan 2008)
4
C. Or, as in most cases, a bit of both, migration with intermittent returns and an eventual permanent return. The first set of actors is the receiving, destination, or host countries. For the analysis of this paper, they are generally the developed or high-income countries of the world (e.g. the United States, Europe, and the Middle Eastern States). Their incentive for migration (circular or otherwise) is to stabilize demand for labor, in specific sectors, of their home country. The second set of actors is the sending or home countries of the migrants. These are, for this paper, the developing countries. Their main incentive is to alleviate unemployment pressures in their countries as well as receive benefits such as remittances from their migrants and the transfer of skills and knowledge. The last important set of actors is the migrants themselves, and their incentive for the most part is the opportunity for a better life for themselves and their families, often though the vehicle of better employment and thus higher income. It is important to mention that these actors and incentives mentioned are generalizations. Not all migrants are from developing countries going to developed countries (e.g. aid workers). What is necessary to note though, is that for the most part, migration is still a one way street and that incentives for better welfare are still chased through the vehicle of better employment. Circular Migration: Triple Win Scenario and Other Benefits The case for circular migration is often concerned the triple win scenario5, named because the major actors in migration (destination and home countries, and migrants) are able to achieve their goals, at the same time minimize the cost. Receiving countries for example are able to combat shortages in labor and in doing so keep wages stable and maintain economic stability. Circular Migrants also provide for receiving countries a somewhat stable pool of labor, most of which do not intend to retire or set-up permanent residence which decreases the need for integration and social frictions. For sending countries, they are able to alleviate unemployment pressures in the economy by sending worker abroad. These countries also receive remittance which recent studies have
5 Aguinas, D.R. and Kathleen Newland. "Circular Migration and Development: Trends Policy Routes, Ways Forward." Migration Policy Institute (Apr 2007)
5
pointed as a growing driver for development. With return migration, receiving countries do not have to worry so much about brain drain issues, since at least some (if not most) of their workers will return and presumably with more skills and experience which they can transfer upon their return. Finally migrants benefit from circular migration because of the increased possibility of earning income as well as gaining skills and experience. Since migrants can and do periodically return to their home countries, ties between migrants and home countries are periodically renewed and strengthened; this also alleviate the psychological and emotional cost of being away from one's family and loved ones.6 Circular Migration brings with it other benefits as well. For instance, the possibility of migration (and thus earning higher incomes) provides incentive for citizens and residents of developing countries to pick-up more skills or continues in higher education. There have also been studies that show that promoting circular migration also decreases illegal immigration. I would suspect that the reason for this is that circular migration programs when properly coordinated and not significantly expensive provides a substitute method for crossing borders and working in receiving developed countries. The receiving country politicians have more leeway in advocating policies which promote immigration if it is circular as opposed to the "traditional" migration of emigration. The reason for this is that it limits the impact of culture clash, since emigrants often have the difficult task of integrating with their destination countries' society7. On the other hand, circular migrants often return home and at times return home permanently so there is less social cost for their destination country in terms of the need for integration. Finally, receiving countries also benefit from the process of self-selection due to migration. Due to the inherent difficulty (emotional and logistical) and cost (personal sacrifices and monetary) of migration, migrants are often people of resilient characteristic and self-starter attitudes. There are also studies that show that migrants are often more willing than their domestic (of the destination country) counterpart to
6 Aguinas, D.R. and Kathleen Newland. "Circular Migration and Development: Trends Policy Routes, Ways Forward." Migration Policy Institute (Apr 2007)
7
_. 2008. “Open Up: Special Report on migration.� The Economist (Jan 2008)
6
relocate for employment. One can argue then that at least first generation, migrants or immigrants are often inherently dynamic and resilient.8 Cases of Circular Migration Moving away from the theoretical world of academics, circular migration, like any global phenomena, is far from perfect in the real world. There are many factors which could lead to flaws and obstacles, in even the most well-inteded policies. The search for these factors is the reason why I will now look at different incidences of circular migration. Hopefully, in analyzing theses cases, I might discover some of the underlying reasons that makes some circular migration work well and other do not. Agricultural Guest Workers: Bracero and Canadian-Guatemalan One of the first modern migration policies introduced was the Bracero program. It was a guest worker program between the United States and Mexico, though most of the contracts were handled by independent farmer’s associations and the “Farm Bureau”. It ran from 1942 to 1946. By 1945, the Bracero program had a record 50000 agricultural guest worker. On the other hand, the Canadian-Guatemalan agricultural guest worker programs, called Temporary Agricultural Workers to Canada is quite new, having only began in 2003. It was created by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Guatemalan Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Labor and Social Affairs, following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between IOM and FERME (a Quebec based foundation that deals with the hiring of agricultural labor)9. As of this paper’s writing, the Canadian Agricultural Program is still running. Both programs can be considered as circular migration because in their provisions include the necessity of return of workers after a set amount of time working. Also, both had provisions on the responsibilities of the different parties, the workers and the employers. There is however a divergence on the enforcement of the both programs, the positive and negative impacts (especially in the case of worker’s rights) and the reasons why such incident occurred.
8
Vertovec, S. 2007. "Circular Migration: the way forward in global policy." International Migration Institute (2007)
9
Sonia Pellecer, “Short-term Temporary Labour Migration Yields Long-term Results,” Migration, July 2007, 19
7
The Bracero program had many deep and historical impacts. For instance, the use of Bracero workers can be credited to having transformed the face of agriculture in the Unite States (especially in the West) into the success that it is now. It also had the impact of setting the trend of legal and illegal border-crossing of Mexicans to the United States, thus changing population patterns in the South Western United States. The Bracero program ended in 1964, due to the excess of cheaper illegal workers, the increased mechanization of farmlands, and the pressure from human right groups. Workers in the Bracero program suffered many abuses; Lee G. Williams, the Department of Labor officer in charge of the programs had described it as a system of “legalized slavery”10. The Canadian-Guatemalan project on the other hand has been primarily met by success. Wages received by workers were higher than the minimum salary in Canada. These wages have reportedly been used for improving their lifestyles back home through: the construction of homes, the repayment of debts, and the purchased of basic needs, etc. The workers are covered (both in writing and enforcement) under Canadian labor laws. Participant workers have been able to return for another “round” of seasonal employment. 99.8% of workers have also returned home after their stay in Canada. It is however important to notice that, because of recentness of this project, one cannot truly see or analyze it long-term impacts. For instance while it seems that this project has been for the most part a success, long-run issues such as the dependency of workers to a program could have long-run ramification that we just cannot see right now11. For the most part however, especially in terms of the enforcement of the two programs and their short-term effect we can see, as mentioned, the divergence in results. For instance, most of the Guatemalan workers have returned after their seasonal stay in Canada, as compared to the Bracero program where there were greater incidences of illegal stays and final immigration by workers after their contract had expired. Most strikingly divergent were the conditions these workers had to face. On one hand we have Guatemalan workers in Canada who enjoyed protection and benefits such as health care, and on the other hand Bracero workers employed in conditions described in 10
_. "The Bracero Program." Farmworkers. //www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html (accessed Aril 25, 2008)
11
Basok, T. "Canada's Temporary Migration Program: A Model Despite Flaws." Migration Policy Institute (2007)
8
conditions of “legalized slavery”. Therefore question that becomes evident to ask, “Is why the difference?” After analyzing both programs I have come to the conclusion that one of the biggest reasons of these differences in results is the difference in the primary actor involved in the enforcement. In the Bracero program, while it was between Mexico and the United States (and indeed under the Department of Labor), the workers were pretty much under the supervision and control of the agricultural sector (the independent farmer associations and Farm Bureaus). The CanadianGuatemalan project on the other hand had third party organization working with the governments and their institutions, the IOM, to monitor the enforcement of the program and its workers. The farmers’ and the agricultural sector’s primary incentive was to increase their output and profit. Workers (as a group) were not primarily seen as people, but rather an economic input. It would have been rational therefore to cut the costs of this input. For example, according to the provisions of the Bracero program, employers were supposed to cover the cost of housing and transportation of their workers; in practice however farmers would often subtract from worker wages to cover for boarding. Exacerbating this is the fact that most agricultural workers were under-educated and uninformed of their rights. For instance, again under the provisions of the program, contracts had to be written in Spanish. There were many incidents however where the contracts were in English and the Braceros would sign without knowing or understanding their full rights and conditions of employment.12 Unethical as it may seem, it makes rational sense to have an uninformed workers as informed worker might start demanding the full enforcement of the provisions – an increase of cost. It is also important to mention that the agricultural sector in the United States is and was a powerful and well connected special-interest lobbying group. The agricultural sector held influence not only in Washington but in states especially reliant on the industry. It would come to no surprise me therefore, if government officials conveniently turned a blind to these worker abuses.
12
Grove, W.A.. "The Mexican Farm Labor Program, 1942-1964: Government-Administered Labor Market Insurance for Farmers." Agricultural History 2, no 2 (1997)
9
In the Canadian-Guatemalan project, we have the IOM, an international third-party organization who are monitoring the project. As the main mission of the IOM is to see the rights of migrants and to ease the movement of peoples, it is no surprise the divergence of results. The IOM worked as an arbiter between the Guatemalan and Canadian institutions. They were more impartial about the judging the success of the project, taking into account not only the profits gained by the farming sector, but also the enforcement of worker’s right and how their wages translated into actual welfare improvements. For example, the IOM facilitated in selection of worker and advised those selected of the necessary travel documents they needed, even booking the flights themselves. While it was the Guatemalan Consulate, that saw to it the provisions for proper working condition were upheld, the IOM provided support and assistance for conflict resolution when deemed necessary. It was also in the Bracero program that migration was transformed from not merely being a social issue but a political policy to be used against countries. Migration offered opportunities for people of the developing world to increase their welfare through better employment; hence it was termed the “Golden Door”. Developed destination countries saw this and discovered that if properly controlled, migration can be used as political leverage, against sending countries, which like Mexico at the time became dependent on the jobs available in the United States to maintain a degree of social stability. Developed nations now held the keys to the “Golden Door” of migration. The affect of this “Golden Door” was worsened in the Bracero program because it was basically under the agricultural sector, while it was ameliorated in the Canadian-Guatemalan project because of the IOM’s cooperation. The agricultural sector being based on the United States, would have wanted more leverage for the United States government in terms of dealing with the Mexican government. The more leverage their country had, the more flexibility they had in their enforcement of the Bracero program. This also had the extra-incentive of weakening the Mexican government’s influence in the program, as among the actors in the Bracero program it was the Mexican government who had the most incentive in ensuring a measure for its people. For the case of the Canadian-Guatemalan Temporary Worker project, the IOM has no incentive to increase the leverage
10
for either country. This results into fairer dealings between Canada and Guatemala, as well reducing the effect of the “Golden Door”. It is important to mention that there is obviously a difference between the power relations of United States to Mexico, and Canada to Guatemala. While both Canada and the United States were already developed nations during the time of their respective programs, the United States is and was the clear economic and political hegemon at the time. In the same way while, both Mexican and Guatemalan economies were somewhat dependent on United States and Canada, respectively; the Mexican economy is far more dependent on the economy of the United States than Guatemalan economy is dependent on the economy of Canada. Therefore while both Canada and the United States have leverage over Guatemala and Mexico, respectively, it is the United States that has far greater leverage and thus a stronger “Golden Door” effect on its migration policies. Another reason why I believe there is a significant difference between the Bracero program and the Canadian-Guatemalan Temporary Worker project was the difference in the core aims of each program. The Bracero program was at its core purely a labor-migration program; its main goal was to provide cheap labor for the agricultural sector of the United States. The CanadianGuatemalan project while also at its core a labor-migration program it also had the element of development when it was conceived, in that it sought to better the lives of its workers back in Guatemala. It is prudent to mention though, that the Bracero program had mandatory savings accounts for the incoming Mexican workers available upon their return to Mexico created as a form incentive to entice return. It can be argued however, that this savings incentive had failed, because for example Bracero workers had stayed long after their contracts had expired. Many Bracero workers also failed to receive the money from this mandatory savings account long after their service. Even up to the 1990s and early 2000s, there were still some lawsuits presented in the federal courts of California, in order to get the money from these savings accounts; not to any success, as the Mexican banks that supposedly handled these account were never operated and thus never under the jurisdiction of the United States13. On the other hand, an integral part of the 13
_. "The Bracero Program." Farmworkers. //www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html (accessed Aril 25, 2008)
11
Canadian-Guatemala project was a focus on the development and betterment of it guest workers. For instance, the health benefits workers received in Canada were extended to their families in Guatemala. With the counseling of the IOM, many workers setup their own savings accounts. For example, according to a survey in 200514 around 40% of the worker’s earning went to building homes or home improvement (consumption) by 2007, 30% of earnings went to saving accounts (investments). Another key element, which I believe helped in the circular migration of workers in terms of development and incentive for returns to Guatemala, was the fact that workers who had previously worked in Canada had an easier time and were given preference in the next season of hiring. This, I would argue, created a sense of job security for the Guatemalan workers. There was therefore less incentive to stay illegally because there was, within the project’s provision, a greater possibility to return to work legally. This environment of self-motivated returns to their home country by the Guatemalan workers, coupled with the fact that 74% of the workers said they had picked up skills in terms of new planting and harvesting techniques, and are returning with money, illustrates my point on how circular migration can be a vehicle of transferring welfare for development. Indian Return Migration While the previous case was a comparison of two seasonal/intermittent returns type of migration, as I’ve mentioned in the beginning of paper, there is another important type of circular migration. This other pattern of circular migration is that of the permanent return of migrants who have stayed in their destination countries for typically longer periods of time, and sometimes even across generations. This is pattern of circular migration is also called remigration or return migration. Return migration is quite different from the intermittent migration patterns seen in the Bracero program or the Canadian-Guatemalan Temporary Worker project, and the difference is not just in the length of stay. The key difference is that unlike intermittently or seasonally employed migrants, where most of the participant can be considered unskilled labor; it is often more skilled 14
_."Survey of Temporary Migration from Guatemala to Canada." International Ogranization for Migration (April 2008)
12
workers that participate in return migration. This difference has many consequences in terms of the impact from this type of circular migration. For example, skilled migrants because of their higher income of longer stays usually have higher level of savings; that translates into higher levels of capital available for the home country (in term of investments) or increased entrepreneurial activities. Skilled migrants also bring more advanced skill sets and talents which they have learned from working in their destination countries. Skills sets such as research and management techniques, when transferred to developing countries can have great impacts on productivity. However as great as the impacts of the return of skilled migrants, it also more difficult to attract return migrants because most of they time they have already integrated with their host societies. It is also more difficult to attract skilled workers because they often have a more complicated and diverse set of needs and aspirations. I will therefore use the example of the Indian diaspora The story of the Indian Diaspora is a long and storied tale, spanning the entire globe. To fully write about it, would be another paper. Suffice to say that the Indian migration started during the days when Indian merchant would trade along the coast of Asia, from the Middle East and China. The spread of the Indian population catapulted due to the colonization of the Subcontinent by the British. Indian workers were transported to every corner of the vast British Empire, and despite their integration with the different cultures they settled in; many Indian communities maintained ties to their own culture through religion and language. Another wave of Indian migration occurred from the 1960s to the 1980s, as a result of opening borders, the relaxation of citizenship restrictions and increased employment opportunities. For instance, many Indian workers, travelled to the suddenly affluent Middle East after the oil-price boom of 1970s. There was also an increase Indian engineers that migrated to the United States due to the increased overall demand for engineer, stemming from the proliferation of programs connected to the Cold War. Due to these migrations, there is at this moment very active Indian communities or PIO (People of Indian Origin), people of Indian origin living across the globe, spanning many different generations. Recently, due to the emergence of the Indian economy, there has been resurgence in return migrations of PIO especially in the research sector. For example, according to the pharmaceutical industry leaders of India (Ranbaxxy, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Aurigene) that a majority of the
13
PhDs in drug discovery received their degrees in the USA.15 While these PhDs had significantly lower salaries as compared to what they were or could earn in the United States. Some of these researches stressed several reasons why they decided to return: 1. There was too much red tape that delayed the process of migration into the United States 2. Indian pharmaceutical firm now had state-of-the-art laboratories and corporate campuses. 3. Indian returnees expressed fear that raising children in the United States would be “harrowing”, and they were especially concerned with culture of “ambient decadence”.16 4. Returnees were also enthusiastic about and becoming part of a growing Indian economy. These current trends of Indian return migration is not limited to the research or the pharmaceutical industry, but also include IT and administrative support services. Members of these returnee populations point to similar factors as the survey of the return researchers had concluded - a bustling economy and the “feeling” of inclusiveness in a culture. They also point to less expensive living expenses especially in raising children as another important factor. As response to this growing return diaspora, India has created a Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs. This ministry has created several incentives for return, including allowing dual-citizenship for the first time. They also have programs to attract PIO professors and intellectuals to teach in universities. As illustrated, return migration of skilled workers is very different from the intermittent migration of unskilled workers. I believe the primary reason for these differences stem obviously enough differences in the needs and priorities of unskilled workers and skilled workers. The priorities of skilled workers are, as I have observed, often more in a more long-term perspective. Examples of such are: the environment in where they can raise their children, the prospects of employment growth, and the opportunities of the economy to provide a livelihood in their chosen professions. As such I believe it would be nearly impossible to rely on a singular policy, program or projects to make return migration to work. I think, however, that in analyzing the Indian return migration we can identify some of the key ingredients that would make return migration possible and effective in the development of a nation. 15 Trumpbour, J. "Circular migration S&E Returnees and the Advance of R&D in India and China." Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School.
14
First, I believe one of the key components of inducing return migration is to maintain ties between the migrant and their home countries. This could mean maintaining cultural ties, keeping a sense identity or belonging that is at least in part rooted in their home countries. This also means keeping in touch with friends and family that they had left behind. Maintaining ties are important because the sense of connection or belonging to a country, I believe, translates into a desire for the development and welfare of the country. Maintaining ties also creates a social network for migrants to come back to; easing the problem of reintegration into a society. The Indian Diaspora and return migration was very fortunate in this aspect, as the Indian culture itself is very distinct. They have their own languages, religions, and traditions, giving Indian migrants a unique culture to be distinctly part of. Second, it would be wise to recognize that especially for countries with large diasporas, like India, the potential of migrants and migrant returns and create a separate and specific ministry or department to handle their specific needs and problems. As already mentioned, it would be nearly impossible and impractical to try tackling return migration with only a singular program; therefore, I believe, what is needed is an institution that can oversee the multiple programs affecting migrants (from migration to residency in the destination country to possible return). The third, and I think is the most difficult and most important component of return migration, is that migrants must feel that their economies and societies will provide for them opportunities for employment and personal growth. Skilled migrant workers, because of the higher demand for their skills, often have a wider range of choices in terms of where to settle and practice their trade. For example, many IT engineers left from India because of the lack opportunities in their sector. Many of these IT engineers along with migrants from other countries (most notably China) and PIO engineers came to work for programs created by the Cold War and then by the growth Silicon Valley. One famous example is Sabeer Bhatia. He was an Indian born, Stanford educated engineer who ended up co-founding Hotmail, one of the earliest and still surviving webbased email that was bought by Microsoft for 400 million dollars. The boom of the Indian economy reinforced by the spread of IT, through internet-driven enterprises and trends in outsourcing has encouraged the return of these IT workers back to India. Making Circular Migration Work, and Examples within the Philippine Context
15
In this last part of my paper I shall focus on compiling and describing the different strategies or initiatives which had made circular migration work – making it beneficial (in general) for all three actors from different historical cases discussed. In order to put these ideas into the real world, I will use the Filipino Migration as theatre to which these ideas can play out. Background As I intend to use the Philippine context, I will first begin with a background of the Philippine migration scene. The history of Philippine Migration can find many parallels with the Indian Migration. For instance, it was our American colonizers, similar to what the British had done to Indians, which had first brought mass migration to my country with the use of our farmers in plantations in the United States, especially in Hawaii, Oregon and California. Similar to the Indian diaspora, many Filipinos went overseas to work in the Middle East in the 1970s because of the oilcrisis and the newly raised incomes of oil producing countries. Finally, while many Indian engineers have worked in developed country’s IT industries, it is our health care workers (doctors and nurses) that have come to dominate the outflow of skilled migrants from the Philippines. Remittances from Philippine migrant workers are also of importance and growing importance for the Philippine economy. There have been debates that point to these remittances as the reason for the Philippine economy’s survival even with a high rate of debt-to-GDP. Remittances are also figured as the reason behind puzzling GDP growth even when investments have stagnated or even have contacted. According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 2001 total remittances* to the Philippines was around 6.366 billion dollars, which was 4th behind Mexico, France and India. However to put into context while for India this represented 2 percent of GDP (which was the highest of the three), for the Philippines the remittance as percent of GDP was 8.9 percent. As can be seen migration is of big importance, and with increasing number of migrants every year, it is an issue that is only set to grow. Circular Migration: Recognizing Needs and Strategies The most basic yet key concept that should cover all circular migration policies, programs or institutions is the idea that circular migration should not just be a labor-policy but it should also be *
As defined as the sum worker’s remittances, compensation to employees and migrant transfers.
16
a development policy as well. In both developing and developed countries, there is still a bias to look at migration as simply a labor issue. For instance, in the Philippines while there are several agencies that are set to ensure smooth labor migration and worker monitoring (e.g. POEA and OWWA**), there is no one specific institution whose mission is try to promote policies and program that translate worker migration (circular or otherwise) into economic development. As I’ve mentioned however, receiving countries must also do their part in making migration not only a labor and development issue. For example, they could make program that provide incentive that promote savings (like matching a percentage of worker’s savings) and simply having better enforced workers rights to its migrants. However in for these initiatives to work, I would suggest: 1. Creating a singular umbrella organization within both destination and sending countries that tackles primarily with migration. For example, in the Philippines there are multiple departments and agencies handling different facets of migration. For instance, POEA handles leaving migrants, OWWA handles migrants in destination countries, remittances are handled by banks and private companies, returns is handled by the migrant, the National Reintegration Center for Overseas Filipino Workers (NRC) handle reintegration and migration information systems along with the Migration Information Resource Center (MIRC). There, too many semi-independent institutions and agencies that handle the different yet interconnected factors in the migration issue. I would suggest the creation of an umbrella organization in order to take steps in centralizing these processes. It would eliminate to an extent, conflicting programs and policies from uncoordinated agencies. It would also reduce to an extent, the political friction from the competition between agencies competing for financing from a limited budget. 2. Recognizing the different types of circular migration (intermittent and return) as well as different types of workers (skilled and unskilled) create differences in their most imminent needs and priorities that have to be addressed. For instance, even though all workers require protection from rights abuses, it is primarily the unskilled workers that need this protection because of their (usually) lower level of education **
POEA, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration; OWWA, Overseas Worker Welfare Administration
17
makes them easier targets from abusive employers17. Or for example, intermittent migrants are more concerned with sending of remittances while return migrants (because they have stayed for a longer period in their destination countries) are more concerned with having an appropriate savings. The following table is a summery of what I believe are the main need of different types of migrants: Needs and Priorities
Skilled
Unskilled
Intermittent
Flexible and Renewable Contracts
Flexible and Renewable Contracts
Ease of Remittance Sending
Ease of Remittance Sending
Ease of Savings
Monitoring and Enforcing of
(e.g. contract engineers)
Workers Rights (e.g. seasonal agricultural workers)
Return
Reintegration Services
Reintegration Service
Employment Growth
Transferability of Savings and
Opportunities
Benefits
Transferability of Savings and
Monitoring and Enforcing of
Benefits
Workers Rights
Maintaining Ties with Home
Maintaining Ties with Home
Country
Country
(e.g. migrant doctors or engineers)
(e.g. domestic helpers)
The Philippines has made some progress in a few of these issues through both government and private enterprise. For example, Globe Telecom (a Philippine Mobile Telecommunications company) has partnered with Western Union in creating a cross-border money transfer service; it is based on Globe’s previous program G-Cash, which allowed transfer of funds through mobile phone technology. The rise in mobile technology, the internet, and the decreased cost in satellite technologies have decreased the cost of connecting to one family back home, as well as bringing to rise of Filipino channels that bring up-to-date news and entertainment from the Philippines. 17
Ruhs, M. and Ha-Joon Chang. "The Ethics of Labor Immigration Policy." International Organization 59. no. 1 (2007)
18
There have been problems however in the monitoring and more importantly, enforcing of workers right. The reason for this is that the Philippines are a poor and relatively weak nation. Similar to the Mexican dilemma in the Bracero program, the Philippine government has the right and duty to protect its citizens; yet it cannot effectively do so outside its borders because it does not have enough political influence or authority in the international stage. Being poor the Philippine government has very few resources to which it can allocate in the protection of its overseas workers. Finally, the biggest challenge for the Philippines is finding a way to attract its workers (especially skilled workers) back. As mentioned, this is the most difficult to achieve since this is not only migration or development, it is a systemic change: making the economy grow, reducing graft and corruption, giving a sense of progress to its people, etc. I cannot even begin to suggest anything on how to do this, because if I had the answer for that, then I’d probably be teaching politicaleconomy rather than studying it. 3. Third and finally, working with third-party international institutions such as the IOM. Working with these institutions bolsters the bargaining position of a developing country, and effectively weakens the “Golden Door”. Developing countries working with the IOM, for example can use the networks and resource of these institutions to better monitor their migrants working conditions. They also provide a fairly unbiased means of settling conflict between migrants and their destination country employers or developing to developed country disagreements. International organizations also provide pressure to developed country governments. This can effectively “tie the hands” of governments into following better migration policies or migration development initiatives. They would also provide a sense of support and credibility to developed country politician who wants to support these migration-development policies. Conclusion: Final Word Migration is an aspect of an increasingly globalizing world, whose importance will only to continue grow. However like all phenomena, it has benefits and costs to all its actors. What my paper has presented is only a possible framework for migration to succeed in reducing these cost and yet allowing migration’s benefits. Circular migration, as presented, might be a way of minimizing the cost and allowing the benefit of migration by addressing the equally issues in the
19
need for labor, the need for employment and the need for development. What is important is that governments take steps in addressing migration as an issue of growing relevance, and in doing so find policies and frameworks that make migration a source of not of conflict or friction but rather a source cooperation and gains.
20
References Rudolph, C. " Security and Political Economy of International Migration." The American Political Science Review 97, no. 4 (Nov 2003), Dustmann, C. and Yoram Weiss. "Return Migration Theory and Empirical Evidence." Center for Research and Analysis of Migration (Feb 2007) Pocha, Jehangir S. "Indian Immigrants enticed to go home:Stronger economy, old ties beckon." Boston Globe (Feb 5, 2007) Sriskandarajah, D. "Migration and Development." Global Commission on International Migration (Sept 2005) Aguinas, D.R. and Kathleen Newland. "Circular Migration and Development: Trends Policy Routes, Ways Forward." Migration Policy Institute (Apr 2007) Vertovec, S. 2007. "Circular Migration: the way forward in global policy." International Migration Institute (2007) Trumpbour, J. "Circular migration S&E Returnees and the Advance of R&D in India and China." Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School. _. "Background Paper. Global Forum on Migration and Development." (2007) Grove, W.A.. "The Mexican Farm Labor Program, 1942-1964: Government-Administered Labor Market Insurance for Farmers." Agricultural History 2, no 2 (1997) Ruhs, M. and Ha-Joon Chang. "The Ethics of Labor Immigration Policy." International Organization 59. no. 1 (2007) Burgess, R. and Vikram Haksar. "Migration and Foreign Remittances in the Philippines.' IMF Working Paper (2005) _. "Migration and its impact on the Labour Market and Education." New Perspectives for Learning – Briefing Paper 38 (2008) _. 2008. “Open Up: Special Report on migration.” The Economist (Jan 2008) Pellecer, S. "Short-term Temporary Labour Migration Yields Long Term Results." Migration (2007) Hugo, G. "Circular Migration: Keeping Development Rolling." Migration Policy Institute (June 2003) Newland, K. "Migration as a Factor in Development and Poverty Reduction." Migration Policy Institute (2003) Aguinas, D.R. "Protecting Overseas Workers: Lessons and Cautions from the Philippines." Migration Policy Institute MPI Staff. "Remittance Data." Migration Policy Institute (June 2003) O'Neil, K. "Using Remittances and Circular Migration to Drive Development." Migration Policy Institute (June 2003) Angenendt, S. "Circular Migration: A Sustainable Concept for Migration Policy?." German Institute for International and Securty Affairs (June 2007) _. "The Bracero Program." Farmworkers. //www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html (accessed Aril 25, 2008) _."Survey of Temporary Migration from Guatemala to Canada." International Ogranization for Migration (April 2008) Srivastava, R. "An overview of Migration in India, its impacts and key issues." Jawaharlal Nehru University (2003) Basok, T. "Canada's Temporary Migration Program: A Model Despite Flaws." Migration Policy Institute (2007) Deparle, J. "Global migration is cornerstone of Western Union Growth." International herald Tribune. (Nov 21, 2007) _."Sending Money Home: Trends in Migrant Remmittances." Finance and Development 42, no 4 (Dec 2005) _. "How can circular migration and sustainable returns serve as development tools?." Global Forum on Migration and Development (July 2007)
21