|
THE
gains brought about by the return migration of Filipinos
abroad may far outweigh the benefits presented by
migration to both Philippine society and the families
left behind by temporary and permanent Filipino
migrants.
Ateneo
de Manila Economics Department chairman and Philippine
Economic Society president Fernando Aldaba said that
“hopefully,” if the government adopts policies that
would open more opportunities for Filipinos abroad, more
of them will be encouraged to return to the country.
“If
these people are given the right incentives and the
appropriate political and economic environment in the
Philippines, they can all make ‘patriotic investments,’
set up nongovernment organizations and diaspora hometown
associations that will all contribute to Philippine
development; share the skills and expertise acquired
abroad in collaboration with local enterprises and
business; and retire in the Philippines to spend some of
their pension funds in their hometowns in desired
places,” Aldaba said in a presentation of the study “The
Philippine Diasporic Dividend: Maximizing the
Development Potentials of International Migration” at
the Managing the Development Impact of International
Migration. The presentation was sponsored by the
state-owned think tank Philippine Institute for
Development Studies in Makati City on Tuesday.
Department of Labor and Employment Assistant Secretary
Ma. Teresa Soriano agreed and said in an interview that
the gains presented by return migration will be more
beneficial to the country and families left behind.
Soriano
said, in terms of one obvious gain, family
reunification, this will already significantly help in
the development of the country starting with the
children left behind by Filipino migrants.
In terms
of actual benefits, Aldaba said if more Filipinos will
return and choose to stay in the Philippines, they can
“provide a possible political bonus.” Aldaba said
migration has not only drained the country of skilled
workers but also educated voters.
He
explained that migration, which is rampant among the
middle class, has reduced the quality of voters in the
country. This, Aldaba said, has led the country to elect
“nonperforming” government officials. He said even if
overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) are given voting
rights, these rights are still very limited.
“Return
migration of these middle-class Filipinos, especially
those with a heart for fellowmen and who have been
exposed to better political conditions abroad, can
benefit the country economically and politically. For as
long as there is a critical group of reform-minded
citizens and some of these are returning overseas
Filipinos, the possibility of change in the political
arena cannot be discarded,” Aldaba said.
Institute of Migration and Development Issues executive director
and University of Santo Tomas professor Jeremiah
Opiniano, who was a coauthor of the study, said to date,
the country is not maximizing the gains brought about by
migration, more so return migration.
Opiniano
said OFWs can invest in a number of areas such as
agriculture, education and health,
infrastructure-development projects, social-development
projects, financial markets, information and
communications technology, and tourism. But few ever do.
He said
certain constraints are present that prevent Filipinos
abroad to see the benefits of migrating back to the
Philippines. There is, Opiniano said, a need to craft a
migration-for-development plan to maximize the benefits
of migration and make return migration not only a
personally, but also economically, viable alternative
for Filipinos abroad.
“While
we have enumerated eight possible directions for
overseas Filipinos’ resources, there is much more work
to be done—especially in crafting a
migration-for-development plan for the Philippines, one
that values the overseas Filipino and that directs their
resources and energies to equitable, rights-based and,
hopefully, far-reaching development,” Opiniano said.
Aldaba
said these constraints include the high cost of
remittances, which is usually pegged at 10 percent to 20
percent of the principal remittance, amount;
insufficient incentives for return migration; and the
deteriorating quality of education in the Philippines.
He said
there is also a coordination failure in rural
development and agriculture that prevents migrants from
investing in agriculture or other labor-intensive
industries in the countryside and politically
instability, as well as rampant corruption, which are
considered part and parcel of Philippine culture.
“I think
we also need some soul-searching as regards the place of
international labor migration in national development
policy. I feel that until today, we have not expounded
on a comprehensive framework and policy on overseas
migration and its role in Philippine development,”
Aldaba said.
“If this
country and its stakeholders play their cards right, we
may see a promising Filipino future beside continued
overseas migration. And this future is not because
overseas migration is a primary provider of development,
but Filipinos here and abroad work together to make that
future work,” he added.
In a
separate presentation, Scalabrini Migration Center
director Dr. Fabio Baggio highlighted previous studies
whose findings showed that migration has caused many
Filipino children to fall behind in terms of school
performance.
Apart
from this, another caveat, Baggio said, is the
overdependence on remittances sent by overseas Filipino
workers. He said that because of regular remittances,
many families or family members tend to rely solely on
the remittances they receive and refuse to become part
of the income generators in the household.
With
this, he said more Filipinos are encouraged to migrate
or become OFWs. Baggio said studies showed that 60
percent of OFW children who are left behind in the
country want to become OFWs themselves.
“[Filipinos tend to think that] the future is always out
of the country [and that] there is no future here. This
is worrisome. Migration can help development but nobody
will develop the Philippines, except Filipinos,” Baggio
said. |
