Countries of origin and destination of migrants in Asia seem to have weathered the crisis that started in the last quarter of 2008.  By the middle of 2009, there were indications that the deleterious consequences of the crisis on countries of origin and destination, and most importantly, on migrants and their families, have passed and prospects of recovery were in sight. There were also indications that some lessons from the 1997 Asian financial crisis may have informed the responses that governments crafted in the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis.  These are some of the conclusions that were drawn from the country papers that were presented at the conference “Assessing the Impact of the Global Economic Crisis on International Migration in Asia: A Year Later” which was held in Manila, the Philippines on 6 May 2010. RMMRU participated in the conference as representative from Bangladesh.

The monitoring of the impact of the crisis on international migration in 2009 was part of the work undertaken by the Migration Information System in Asia (MISA) Project.  Supported by the International Labour Organization Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific and coordinated by the Scalabrini Migration Center-Philippines, the MISA Project is an initiative that aims to develop a mechanism for the collection, dissemination and sharing of migration data and statistics. To date, there are 14 active participating countries and areas that are part of the MISA network: Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka in South Asia; Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam in Southeast Asia; and China, Japan, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan Province of China (an associate member) in East Asia. MISA hosts recent migration statistics in the website, http://www.smc.org.ph.

The monitoring of the impact of the crisis on international migration in the region, based on the country papers prepared by the MISA country coordinators, reveals notable general and specific consequences in the region.

Labour Sending Countries 

• Bangladesh registered a 48 percent drop in the number of workers who took up overseas employment in the period 2008-2009. But part of the decline was due to factors other than the crisis (e.g., the freeze on the hiring of Bangladeshi workers by Malaysia).  In terms of remittances, however, contrary to expectations, remittances to Bangladesh, US$10 billion in 2009, posted an increase.

• In the state of Kerala, India, the site of major labour migration from India, there was no large-scale return migration from the Gulf region, where most Keralite workers are. Also, not all the return migration was due to the crisis. Remittances increased, not decreased in 2008 and 2009.

• Worker deployment from the Philippines (more than a million per year) and remittances to the country in 2008 and 2009 continued an upward trend despite the crisis. Based on available data, overseas workers repatriated and displaced by the crisis were fewer than was projected earlier. The global reach of Filipino workers and their diverse occupational profile have shielded the Philippines from the financial crisis.

• Viet Nam and Nepal also had lower worker deployment in 2008-09; both countries expect to resume higher deployment levels as the global economy recovers. In China, the bigger phenomenon of internal migration and prospects of displacement and return migration to rural areas invited more concerns. International student migration from China, interestingly, increased during the crisis.

Labour Receiving Countries

In the destination countries, Japan experienced a decline in skilled arrivals in 2008-09. Malaysia also received a smaller number of less-skilled labourers in 2008-09. The number of professional workers in the Republic of Korea actually increased. Overall there was a slight decrease in these countries.

Responses to the Crisis

In terms of government response, governments took courses of action to cushion the impact of the recession, producing mixed results. The Philippines explored new labour markets in response to the recession, but it also drew up various strategies to support and assist displaced and repatriated workers. Across the countries of origin, the challenge of strengthening services and programs to returnees, particularly under conditions of crisis, surfaced.

Policy changes were also made in the context of long-term planning rather than the economic meltdown. Japan and the Republic of Korea continued to reduce the number of visa overstayers, while Malaysia is still in the process of ridding itself of dependence especially on less-skilled workers. Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand also introduced several measures that were not necessarily and directly related to the recession.

Unlike the 1997 Asian crisis, destination countries did not carry out large-scale or forced repatriation of migrant workers. Japan introduced an incentive-based repatriation of Nikkei-jin, the Latin American-Japanese migrants, who were badly hit by the crisis because of the closure of companies that hired them.

Conclusion

Data on impacts of the crisis on migrant workers’ working and living conditions (especially those who had been rendered in an irregular situation), placement fees and practices of the migration industry and employers’ practices are less known. While the crisis compelled “crisis-specific” policies and programs, it is important to cast these initiatives in the larger framework of migration governance at the local, national and regional level. Moreover, the 2008 crisis reinforced one lesson from the 1997 crisis, migration is structural. Policies anchored on “temporary” migration will need to consider migration as “normal” and part of an integrated Asian economy and community.