determinants and dynamics of micronesian emigration
DESCRIPTION
Determinants and Dynamics of Micronesian Emigration. A Brief Discussion for the Micronesian Voices in Hawaii Conference April 2008 Ben Graham. Outline. Foreword Guiding Questions Migration 101: What We Know WWII to Independence Micronesian Emigration Today The Numbers - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
A Brief Discussionfor the
Micronesian Voices in Hawaii ConferenceApril 2008
Ben Graham
Outline1. Foreword2. Guiding Questions3. Migration 101: What We Know4. WWII to Independence5. Micronesian Emigration Today6. The Numbers7. Development Intentions8. Issues and Indicators9. Summary10.Looking Forward
ForewordFocus on:
international emigration (movement of persons out of one country and into another)
from the FSM and the RMI into the United States
“Micronesia” and “Micronesians” refer to FSM/RMI and their citizens (Palau and other countries in region not specifically discussed)
Guiding QuestionsWhat are common drivers and characteristics of
global migration? What do we know specifically about Micronesian
emigration over time?What are key factors driving Micronesians to
leave their islands today?What are main social, economic, and other issues
we must consider to better understand Micronesian emigration?
Looking forward, what are some important issues to consider?
Migration 101: What We KnowHumans have always migrated as a way to
improve their conditionMicronesians in particular have (over thousands of
years and out of basic necessity) always been highly mobile people
Today, global migration pressures continue to rise, mostly from the developing to the developed world
Every year, millions of emigrants from developing countries gain access into developed countries via formal and legal processes
Every year many enter illegally
Migration 101: What We KnowUS alone sees nearly two million entrants a year,
half a million of which are illegalEarliest economic models for predicting
emigration (at individual level) identified the following as major factors influencing decision: Earnings at homePotential earnings abroadCost of migration
Migration 101: What We KnowOver time, and with more research, more variables
have been added. Common factors on sending country side include:Poverty and hardshipUnemploymentLow wagesHigh fertilityPoor health and education servicesConflict, insecurity, violenceGovernance issuesHuman rights abuse, persecution, discrimination
Migration 101: What We KnowOn the receiving side, major factors include:
Stock of previous emigrants from home country now residing in destination country (the “friends and relatives” effect)
Demand for laborPotential for improved living standardSafety and securityPolitical and religious freedomFamily reunificationReturn to ethnic homelandFreedom from discrimination and persecution
Migration 101: What We KnowIn the middle, some factors can enable or deter the
flow of migration from one country to another, namely:CostDistanceImmigration policies
In short, international migration is influenced by a wide and complex set of factors on the sending side, the receiving side, and in between. Emigration theories and models developed over the years can only partially explain and predict the emigration phenomenon.
Migration 101: What We KnowA simplified framework for studying migration
Push
Fact
ors Poverty/hardship
UnemploymentLow wagesHigh fertilityPoor health, education basic servicesConflict, war, insecurity, violenceGovernance issuesHuman rights abuse, discrimination, persecutionNatural disastersOthers
Barr
iers
/Ena
bler
s Immigration policyDistanceCost
Pull F
acto
rs Prospects of higher wagesDemand for laborPotential for improved living standardSafety and securityPolitical/religious freedomFamily reunification (friends and relatives)Ethnic homelandFreedom from discriminationOthers
Migration 101: What We KnowA few other important characteristics of emigration:
Contrary to popular belief, emigration from poor countries typically increases as economic development in these countries takes place
There has been observed a hump-shaped curve reflecting the relationship between economic development and emigration
Migration (in general) can have profound effects on development, human capital accumulation, poverty, and many other issues in both sending and receiving countries
Internal migration (mostly in terms of urban migration) and migration between developing countries are also growing
WWII to Independence1950s and 1960s: Movement Strategically
DeniedPost WWII years characterized by relatively
limited movement of people into and out of Micronesia
US administration of TTPI emphasized control and security
US policy of strategic denial in forceHowever late 1960s saw entry of regularly
scheduled airline services (Continental Micronesia) and Peace Corps
WWII to Independence1970s and 1980s: Emigration for Education
BeginsSchools built in the 1950s and 1960s began
graduating students in 1960s and 1970s Emigration for education began in the 1970s Most emigration out of Micronesia throughout
the 1970s and 1980s was for education
Micronesian Emigration TodayThe 1986 commencement of the Compacts the defining
moment in modern Micronesian emigration Whereas education the initial driver, after 1986 we see
a broadening of factors Micronesians increasingly citing economic opportunity
and employment as the key driversWhile 15.6 percent of post-Compact migrants in Hawaii
in 1997 cited employment as their primary reason in 2003 this increased to 18.2 percent
Other drivers gaining importance: medical and subsistence
Arkansas Marshallese cite employment as #1
Micronesian Emigration TodayReason for Migrating (post-Compact migrants), Hawaii: 1997 and 2003
Source: Censuses of Micronesians in Hawaii.
The NumbersEmigration has grown rapidly especially since
beginning of the CompactsBut not unpredicted:
1963 Solomon report “in the long run ... certain inflexible economic limitations of the area and the increasing population pressure must eventually compel substantial emigration of Micronesians.”
1986 Fran Hezel “There is every reason to believe that the trickle of emigrants will increase considerably in the near future… Unless the island nations of Micronesia are somehow able to turn around their economies and create hundreds of new jobs without the assistance of higher levels of US aid, there is a good chance that more young people will elect to leave home and pursue jobs, wherever they are to be found.”
The NumbersNeither FSM nor RMI have systems to capture
emigration data Recently discovered US Department of Transportation
database captures all movements of airline passengers Analyze air passenger movements into and out of
Micronesian and US airports (embarkations and disembarkations) from the early 1990s to today
The following summarizes net embarkations (departures over arrivals) of air passengers over the 1991 to 2006 period
The data show very clearly: over 16 year period thousands more have departed than have arrived
The NumbersFSM saw over 23,000 net embarkations while
RMI saw over 15,000Chuuk 12,423 Pohnpei 8,490 Kosrae 1,187Yap 991
While absolute numbers of FSM embarkations higher, RMI higher in percentage terms
Year FSM Kosrae Pohnpei Chuuk Yap RMI Majuro Kwajalein
2006 2,229 88 680 1,553 -92 1,070 884 186
2005 1,511 218 496 815 -18 1,023 1,040 -17
2004 2,712 131 919 1,467 195 553 542 11
2003 2,699 136 485 1,890 188 781 419 362
2002 1,068 158 632 203 75 913 894 19
2001 1,277 83 566 652 -24 2,133 1,517 616
2000 1,114 171 1,061 95 -213 1,916 1,289 627
1999 -255 -13 113 -400 45 457 660 -203
1998 2,032 53 911 663 405 755 833 -78
1997 1,155 -65 422 689 109 1,415 1,179 236
1996 1,558 77 374 1,062 45 640 586 54
1995 1,890 95 818 983 -6 1,753 509 1,244
1994 707 -109 -40 858 -2 546 573 -27
1993 728 171 182 444 -69 930 254 676
1992 1,093 -61 213 1,070 -129 706 330 376
1991 1,573 54 658 379 482 -357 237 -594
1991-2006 total 23,091 1,187 8,490 12,423 991 15,234 11,746 3,488
1991-2006 avg 1,443 74 531 776 62 952 734 218
Net Embarkations (by air) FSM and RMI: 1991 to 2006
Source: US Department of Transportation TranStats DatabaseNote: data only for passenger movements between FSM/RMI and US, FY for FSM and CY for RMI
Net Embarkations (by air) FSM and RMI: 1991 to 2006
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
FSM RMI
Source: US Department of Transportation TranStats DatabaseNote: data only for passenger movements between FSM/RMI and US, FY for FSM and CY for RMI
The NumbersFor FSM, 1998, 2003, 2004, and 2006 banner
years, with more than 2,000 total net embarkations
For RMI, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2005 and 2006 over 1,000 net embarkations
Next graph shows three year trailing averages for net embarkations for the 1993 to 2006 period
For FSM, since year 2000, average has been on an upswing (except for the slight dip in 2006)
For RMI, average was high in the early 2000s but has slowly leveled off
Net Embarkations (by air) FSM and RMI, 3-Year Trailing Average: 1993 to 2006
1,1311,195 1,208
1,7741,853
2,044
2,288
2,151
716
915
1,057
1,259
1,081
868 857 882
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
FSM RMI
Source: US Department of Transportation TranStats DatabaseNote: data only for passenger movements between FSM/RMI and US, FY for FSM and CY for RMI
Development IntentionsGenerally speaking, development goals, intentions,
and aspirations fairly clear:Adopted similar strategies for development,
prioritization on health and education sectors Amended Compacts of Free Association prioritize
resource allocations to health, education and supporting infrastructure
Pledged to promote sustainable growth by supporting and facilitating private sector development, efficient and effective basic public services, protecting and managing natural resources
Development IntentionsBoth countries have held national economic and
social summitsBoth countries have formulated economic
development plans Both have signed onto multiple international
treaties that commit them to achieving specific development goals and targets (MDGs)
But neither the FSM nor the RMI have very clear definitions of poverty and hardship and neither has articulated poverty alleviation or social protection strategy
Issues and IndicatorsMedian Age: 1999-2000
Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community PRISM website, census reports
Issues and Indicators
Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community PRISM website, census reports
Population Pyramids for RMI, FSM: 1999-2000
Issues and IndicatorsAverage Household Size: 1999-2000
Source: census reports
Issues and IndicatorsBoth countries have rapidly growing working age
populations (2006): FSM 60,500 and RMI 28,900
In the labor force: FSM 35,400 and RMI 14,800 (historically low
LFPRs)Formally employed:
FSM 16,463 and RMI 9,810 (registered in the Social Security databases)
In some areas, formal employment has contracted over time
Issues and IndicatorsEstimates for those in labor force but not
registered as being formally employed:FSM 18,978 and RMI 4,950 persons
These nearly 24,000 people are either:Formally employed but not registered Informally or self-employed Not employed
Issues and Indicators
Total Population = 100
Working Age Population = 56
Labor Force = 31
16
Issues and IndicatorsEstimated Labor Force and Formally Employed: 1997 to 2006
Source: FSM and RMI Economic Reviews FY2006, author estimates
Issues and IndicatorsNational Unemployment Rate: 1999-2000
Source: census reports
Issues and IndicatorsAverage Annual Real Wages, Formally Employed: 1995 to 2006
Source: FSM Economic Review FY2006
Issues and IndicatorsAs with real wages, over the long run real
GDP per capita in FSM and RMI has fallen FSM real GDP per capita (1998 $) fell from
$2,107 in 1995 to $1,888 in FY2006 In RMI the decline (in 2000 $) from $2,693 to
$2,454
Issues and IndicatorsPercent of Population Living Below Basic Needs Poverty Line: 1999-2000
Source: ADB Hardship in the Pacific series
Issues and IndicatorsParticipatory Poverty Assessments conducted in
2002 (for RMI) and 2004 (for FSM) by ADBConclusion: that while extreme poverty does not
currently exist, many feel that hardship being experienced by many families in both urban and rural areas
Some families find it increasingly difficult to earn cash needed to meet living expenses
In 2006 RMI Community Survey, 27 percent of households indicated overall quality of life has gotten worse or much worse in recent years
Issues and IndicatorsPublic Expenditure on Education (% of GDP): 2003
Source: IMF
Issues and IndicatorsPublic Expenditure on Health (% of GDP): 2003
Source: IMF
Issues and IndicatorsAnnual Average Per Capita Spending for Education/Health ($): 2005
Source: World Bank
Issues and IndicatorsWorld Health Organization Global Rankings on Overall Performance of Health Systems (191 countries): 2000
Source: WHO
Issues and IndicatorsLife Expectancy, Male and Female (from latest censuses)
Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, PRISM website
Issues and IndicatorsRetention Rates, Grades 1,8,9,12
Source: World Bank and Hezel, F. (2002). Taking Responsibility for our Schools. PREL.
Issues and Indicators
FIJI TO
NG
A
AMER
ICA
N S
AM
OA
MIC
RO
NES
IASA
MO
AM
AR
SHA
LL IS
LAN
DS
KIR
IBA
TI
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Nor
mal
ized
Pol
itica
l Ins
tabi
lity
and
Viol
ence
Inde
x
213 Countries
Political Stability - 2005HIGH
LOW
(Chosen comparator also shown for selected countries)
Note: Blue dots represent estimates for the 2005 governance indicators. The thin vertical lines represent standard errors around these estimates for each country in world-wide sample. Black dot represents the chosen year comparator (if any). To add or delete countries f rom the chart, click on the "Country Selection" tab below.
Source: "Governance Matters V: Governance Indicators for 1996-2005 " by Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi. Disclaimer: The governance indicators presented here ref lect the statistical compilation of responses on the quality of governance given by a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries, as reported by a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations. The aggregate indicators in no way ref lect the of f icial position of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. As discussed in detail in the accompanying papers, countries' relative positions on these indicators are subject to margins of error that are clearly indicated. Consequently, precise country rankings should not be inferred f rom this data.
Issues and IndicatorsTO
NG
A
FIJI M
AR
SHAL
L IS
LAN
DS
MIC
RO
NES
IA
SAM
OA
KIR
IBA
TI AM
ERIC
AN
SA
MO
A
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Nor
mal
ized
Con
trol
of C
orru
ptio
n In
dex
204 Countries
Control of Corruption - 2005HIGH
LOW
Note: Blue dots represent estimates for the 2005 governance indicators. The thin vertical lines represent standard errors around these estimates for each country in world-wide sample. Black dot represents the chosen year comparator (if any). To add or delete countries f rom the chart, click on the "Country Selection" tab below.
(Chosen comparator also shown for selected countries)
Source: "Governance Matters V: Governance Indicators for 1996-2005 " by Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi. Disclaimer: The governance indicators presented here reflect the statistical compilation of responses on the quality of governance given by a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries, as reported by a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations. The aggregate indicators in no way ref lect the of f icial position of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. As discussed in detail in the accompanying papers, countries' relative positions on these indicators are subject to margins of error that are clearly indicated. Consequently, precise country rankings should not be inferred f rom this data.
Issues and IndicatorsIs RMI Government (2006) Responsive to Community Needs?
Source: 2006 RMI Community Survey
SummaryYoung population structures = continued high growth
in working ages, labor forceMicronesia will have excess labor supply for long time,
but employment opportunities at home growing slowlyUnemployment and inactivity high, especially among
youthReal incomes have fallen since 1990s, many
households below basic needs linesFSM and RMI spend far more on health/education but
much room for improvementIn governance, both countries can make improvements
Looking ForwardNo reason to believe that magnitude of emigration will
dramatically change any time soon - many push, pull, enabling factors at play
Push
Fact
ors Poverty/hardship
UnemploymentLow wagesHigh fertilityPoor health, education basic servicesConflict, war, insecurity, violenceGovernance issuesHuman rights abuse, discrimination, persecutionNatural disastersOthers
Barr
iers
/Ena
bler
s Immigration policyDistanceCost
Pull F
acto
rs Prospects of higher wagesDemand for laborPotential for improved living standardSafety and securityPolitical/religious freedomFamily reunification (friends and relatives)Ethnic homelandFreedom from discriminationOthers
Looking ForwardPUSH: hardship, unemployment, low wages, limited education and health services, general lack of economic security, boredom – all will continue
to push MicronesiansPULL: plentiful jobs, better wages, education opportunities, health services, growing pool of friends and relatives, prospects of improved living
standards, economic security, citizenship, more US and other employers directly hiring from Micronesia (?) – all will continue to pull MicronesiansENABLERS: open door access under Compact, friends and relatives covering emigration costs, short distances to some destinations (Guam,
Honolulu)
Looking ForwardSome key questions and issues to also consider:
Is the open access under the Compact permanent? What about companies now directly recruiting Micronesians from home (covering costs, etc.)?What about climate change and sea level rise?What about seasonal work schemes (e.g., Guam, Taiwan, etc.)?What about growth in tourism?What about remittances (financial, governance, etc.)?Other issues?
Looking ForwardBoth countries have promised to improve human
development, economies, and quality of lifeSome indicators confirm this is happening but
most indicators suggest major improvements can be made, especially in health and education performance and outcomes
But improving health and education alone will not be enough
Economic policy commitments should translate into real economic and employment growth
Looking ForwardMost pubic money spent on education and health,
so should highest priority be to ensure all citizens are able to complete high quality education? Shouldn’t quality of health care (preventative, diagnosis) dramatically improve?
Improving human development, social and economic outcomes is the most effective way to ensure all Micronesians (wherever they chose to live) are able to not only survive but truly succeed in their environments
Looking ForwardFSM 3rd Economic Summit (2004): To achieve moderate growth in incomes and to avoid rising out-
migration rates… need to maintain fiscal discipline… support essential services… implement a moderate program of reforms to improve the environment for domestic and foreign investment… reform program would be required…
All of these principles (fiscal discipline, reform, etc.) should be pursued, however while development and rising incomes will improve the lives of Micronesians, this may not necessarily stem the heavy tide of emigration we have now witnessed for over two decades
Groceries will cost: 40.93% less
Groceries will cost: 20.74% less
Groceries will cost: 39.14% less
Groceries will cost: 36.02% less
Housing will cost: 68.10% less
Housing will cost: 35.48% less
Housing will cost: 49.20% less
Housing will cost: 58.08% less
Utilities will cost: 11.36% less Utilities will cost: 17.84% less Utilities will cost: 28.07% less Utilities will cost: 20.45% lessTransportation
will cost: 20.31% lessTransportation
will cost: 10.48% lessTransportation
will cost: 10.74% lessTransportation
will cost: 12.87% lessHealthcare will
cost: 14.65% lessHealthcare will
cost: 1.74% moreHealthcare will
cost: 2.53% moreHealthcare will
cost: 8.49% less
Salary in Honolulu HI: $14,500 ($7.25/hour @ 2,000 annual hours)Comparable salary in
Phoenix AZ:$9,085.91
If you move from Honolulu HI to Phoenix AZ...
Comparable salary in Eugene OR:
$9,668.15
If you move from Honolulu HI to Eugene OR...
Comparable salary in Sacramento CA:
$10,951.24
If you move from Honolulu HI to Sacramento CA...
Comparable salary in Fayetteville AR:
$8,108.66
If you move from Honolulu HI to Fayetteville AR...
Source: CNN Money website (www.cnnmoney.com)
Hawaii specific issues…