Migrants' Contributions Exceed Figures of Foreign Aid

A recent United Nations study revealed that migrants working in industrialized countries sent home more money than donor nations did in foreign aid in 2006. I guess you’re wondering how much funds a group of migrant workers could provide in comparison to that of entire countries? To be exact, migrants working in developed countries (DCs) sent home an approximated $300 billion to their families in 2006 – surpassing the $104 billion provided by donor nations in foreign aid to less developed countries (LDCs). Therefore, how do international institutions like the U.N. expect to accomplish its objectives, as in those set forth by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), if migrants can provide more funds than it does in foreign aid?

According to Sending money home: Worldwide remittances to developing countries, a report generated by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Asia received the largest share of the remittances – more than $114 billion – followed by Latin America and the Caribbean with $68 billion, Eastern Europe with $51 billion, Africa with $39 billion, and the Near East with $29 billion. Kevin Cleaver, Assistant President of IFAD, stated in a U.N. News Centre article that, “[These figures], which [are] conservative estimates, shows that the seemingly small sums sent home by migrant workers when added together dwarf official development assistance.” The study also found that the remittances sent home regularly by more than 150 million migrants exceeded foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries, which in 2006 totaled around $167 billion.

Nevertheless, it would be quite impractical to try and regulate this phenomenon within the countries of which these funds are being outsourced. These transactions are typically sent in the denominations of hundreds of USD at a time, through more than 1.5 billion separate financial transactions. It can be argued that this money is not being recycled within the economy and is in turn hurting these countries. This has been one of the leading arguments for stricter immigration policy amongst advocates within the United States. However, to my knowledge, no nation has seemingly faltered as a result of this to date.

Instead of dwelling on the facts, policies should be set forth abroad by international institutions to productively guide these funds to stimulate economic growth. The report provided by IFAD shows that a majority of these remittances flow to families in rural areas, and is mostly used for basic necessities such as food, clothing and medicines. Yet, 10 to 20 percent is being saved, but not in the proper financial institutions. Therefore, to effectively utilize the money being saved in LDCs, which in 2006 would have amounted to between $30 and $60 billion, organizations like the U.N. should provide educational programs to encourage people in LDCs to save their money in financial institutions, which would then create major opportunities for local development.

In theory, in addition to increased foreign aid for LDCs, the U.N. must harness these funds and increase efforts to leverage remittance flows for greater development impact. The key to resolving the overlying problem of LDCs’ governments inefficiently allocating resources is to better direct their economic plans. If these remittances sent by migrants were effectively used by LDCs in addition to foreign aid provided by DCs, the total amount of funds available for economic growth in 2006 would have been, at most, $164 billion; not to mention the $167 billion already provided in the form of FDI that would have allowed for significant global progress towards accomplishing the MDGs.

Asia-Pacific Region Lag in Reaching Antipoverty Goals

On October 8, 2007, the United Nations publicly released a report in which assessed the progress of the Asia-Pacific region on reaching the antipoverty Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Results from this report have clearly shown that Asia and the Pacific are well on track and ahead of its peers in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa to reduce extreme poverty by half, attain universal education, and achieve gender parity in education by the target year 2015. Nevertheless the report seemingly yields mixed results as well. Some of which have made surprising correlations between antipoverty progress between Asia and the Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Based on findings within the report, parts of the Asia-Pacific region are severely lagging behind Africa in achieving specific MDGs. In fact, statistics show that Asia and the Pacific accounts for about two thirds of the world's underweight children. More than one in four children under the age of five is underweight. Furthermore, maternal deaths in Asia and the Pacific are anything but satisfactory. The region accounts for almost half of the global total, according to the report, The Millennium Development Goals: Progress in Asia and the Pacific 2007. The region's overall maternal mortality ratio, at over 300 per 100,000 live births, is more than 30 percent higher than in Latin America and the Caribbean. Unfortunately, these rates in many Asian countries exceed those of its regional counterparts.

According to a joint publication by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), “The region's greatest challenges lie in addressing the issues of child mortality, malnutrition, improving maternal health and providing safe drinking water and sanitation facilities.” Haishan Fu, the Chief of the Statistics Development Section for UNESCAP believes, “The 2007 MDG progress report gives us an indication of what the region stands to gain if we intensify our efforts to meet the MDGs. We need to focus on those countries that are moving slowly or not making progress, and within those areas concentrate on improving the lives of the most vulnerable.”

Therefore, despite Asia and the Pacific’s monumental success in making progress towards achieving the MDGs, this report explicitly shows that even the most accomplished regions have much work to do before 2015. As the deadline quickly approaches, Asia is struggling to better the condition of the impoverished. When basic necessities of a healthy life like safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are not present, it’s practically impossible to lift millions of people out of poverty. Consequently, regions all over the world continue to struggle with the MDGs. Ultimately, when the most successful regions are having difficulty making progress, it puts into questions whether or not these goals can actually be completed.

Democrats and Relgion Go Hand In Hand?

In a recent post made by Stephen Mack entitled, “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual,” he outwardly argues that, “If there’s any truth to the old adage that religion and (liberal, democratic) politics don’t mix; it isn’t because they are polar opposites—an ideological oil reacting against a metaphysical water. Rather, it’s because they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination.” I must say, Mack does make a really good point. Since my background centers on International Relations, there is a very fine line when it comes to differentiating between religion and politics. After all, the history of the United States all started in 1630 when according to Mack, “a prosperous lawyer by the name of John Winthrop and a band of English Puritans left the security of their English homes, migrated to the new American wilderness. There they launched one of the most daring experiments in Christian civil government the old world had ever seen.” The foundations of principles and morality essentially began with religion and implementing these fundamentals into law and order is what sparked the American way of life. It is true that these pioneers established the importance of separating church and state, but difference between religion and politics has constantly been a controversial topic; even till this day. It is different in the sense that the separation of church and state entails keeping government and religious institutions independent of one another, while religion and politics is not as easily distinguishable.

I guess the big debate here is that since government and religious institutions can not be one in the same, is it acceptable for politicians to use religion as grounds for campaigning? Mack comments on this debate state that:

What these liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them—as much as possible—in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.

Nevertheless, politicians competing for the upper hand in the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election have taken particular interest in the issue; hoping to gain the support of the undoubted religious.

In a recent CNN article entitled, “Obama: GOP doesn’t own faith issue,” writer Peter Hamby comments on Senator Barack Obama’s campaign message to a multiracial evangelical congregation in traditionally conservative Greenville, South Carolina. Obama acknowledged in his speech that, “[He thinks] it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party. At least in politics, the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seemed intolerant or pushed people away.” It seems the Democratic candidates’ recent efforts in South Carolina are to reach out to Christian voters. And what better way than to comment on the most important issue to such an audience: religion. However, Obama’s attempts to reach out to a crowd of “church-going Republican primary voters” as Hamby put it, shows that religion is a controversial campaign issue, especially within the United States. Similar efforts by politicians beg the question as to how far some will go to get their votes. Yet, Obama’s speech in Greenville, I must say, was especially well designed. He never delved into religiously controversial issues but instead tip-toed around the general idea. I mean when you’re applauding evangelical leaders such as T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren for beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals have never done, and making statements like, “We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth,” it’s quite apparent to see what the main objective; to gain support.

Therefore, I believe that as long as politics are involved religious insight is not too far behind. I guess it’s because religion is an aspect of life that people can always resort to. But in a nation where religious freedom is embraced, using such issues to gain political support creates the foundation for debate. Politicians can not rely too heavily on such grounds because every person in the U.S. does not practice the same religion; resulting in conflicting views on particular key issues. The Democratic approach seems to have achieved a happy medium when it comes to religion, not that I’m stating my political position, by giving credit to the spiritual for their current views on key campaign issues. However, religion and politics remains to be a particularly sticky concern.

A Catholic Framework for Economic Life...

The issue of religion and politics has become an all but too common topic in political debates. I guess most people, like me, want to know where politicians should draw the line when it comes to including their religious views with their standpoints on certain campaign issues. I know that religion is where most of us grasp our sense of morality and foundations between what is right and what is wrong, but religious views have seemingly established the framework of political. Since my background focuses primarily on International Relations, I came across an interesting document that outlines certain economic policies that pursue Catholic ideals.

In 1996, the American bishops of the Catholic Church issued the following statement entitled, “A Catholic Framework for Economic Life.” Within this document, the bishops explain 10 principles that are directly drawn from Catholic teaching on economic life:

1. The economy exists for the person, not the person for the economy.

2. All economic life should be shaped by moral principles. Economic choices and institutions must be judged by how they protect or undermine the life and dignity of the human person, support the family, and serve the common good.

3. A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring.

4. All people have a right to life and to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing shelter, education, healthcare, safe environment, economic security).

5. All people have the right to economic initiative, to productive work, to just wages and benefits, to decent working conditions as well as to organize and join unions or other associations.

6. All people, to the extent they are able, have a corresponding duty to work, a responsibility to provide for the needs of their families, and an obligation to contribute to the broader society.

7. In economic life free markets have both clear advantages and limits; government has essential responsibility to provide for the needs of their families, and an obligation to contribute to the broader society.

8. Society has a moral obligation, including governmental action where necessary, to assure opportunity, meet basic human needs, and pursue justice in economic life.

9. Workers, owners, managers, stockholders and consumers are moral agents in economic life. By our choices, initiative, creativity and investment, we enhance or diminish economic opportunity, community life, and social justice.

10. The global economy has moral dimensions and human consequences. Decisions in investment, trade, aid and development should protect human life and promote human rights, especially for those most in need wherever they might live on this globe.

Taking a look at these principles definitively shows how current economic policies within the U.S. share the views and goals of the Catholic Church. The one’s that are most apparent are the Catholic views of all people having the right to life and to secure the basic necessities of life. Indeed in the U.S. debates on abortion and social welfare are always key topics on politicians’ campaign agendas. We have actually seen such views flourish as programs like Social Security still play overwhelming roles in today’s society.

Furthermore, their view on having government intervention in an economy of free trade is one that surprises me the most considering current negotiations within the World Trade Organization (WTO). Foreign economic policy has been one of the greatest issues for the U.S. to date with respects to globalization and an internationally integrating world economy. Nevertheless, taking into account the current Doha Round of negotiations facilitated by the WTO, attempts to lower trade barriers around the world, permitting free trade between countries of varying prosperity are still high on the priority list.

I guess my point here is that religion and politics seemingly go hand in hand. In order to participate in political debates, you must develop a credible viewpoint. And most of the time our views are inspired by religious ideals; despite the fact that we might nit be aware of it.