Harvests and Hardships: Analyzing Overseas Migration and Philippine Rural Development (Preview)

Part 1
Development conditions in rural Philippines
RURAL Philippines is remarked by some development analysts as the frontlines of
national development. This is why some are pinning their hopes on bottom-top, localized
approaches to development in nearly two decades of decentralizing government
authorities and functions to rural areas’ local government units.
But rural development “blues” persist in the Philippines [Gelia Castillo, 1979] as
these are a function of macro- to micro-level socio-economic factors.
Up and down
Macro-economic growth. A boom-and-bust scenario of macroeconomic growth typically
defines the Philippine economic situation. This so-called “boom and bust cycle” of
Philippine economic growth is always associated with economic and political crises,
natural or man-made triggers, and internal and external triggers [Fernando Aldaba and
Reuel Hermoso, 2010: 8-9] —the most recent of which was the 2008 global economic
and financial crisis [see Figure 3].
The Philippine economy is also observed to have the following traits [see also
Table 2]:
1. Consumption primarily drives Philippine economic growth in the last several years.
Consumption is already a 60-to-70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP);
2. Investments continue to decline in the Philippines. In the last five years, the
percentage to GDP of gross fixed capital formation (an indicator of a country’s
level of investments) has stuck to within the 14 percent range. Meanwhile, the
country’s foreign direct investment levels (looking at FDI’s percentage to GDP)
are among the lowest in Southeast Asia [Fernando Aldaba and Reuel Hermoso,
2010a];
35