INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY...

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) MANPOWER – OFWs

Department of Science and Technology SCIENCE EDUCATION INSTITUTE

International Migration of Science and Technology (S&T) Manpower - OFWs

All rights reserved. ©2011 by the Science Education Institute, Department of Science and Technology (SEI-DOST) Manila, Philippines

Citation: SEI-DOST, (2011). International migration of science and technology (s&t) manpower - ofws Manila: SEI-DOST.

ISBN: 978-971-8600-50-4

Published by:

Science Education Institute, Department of Science and Technology 1st and 2nd Levels, Science Heritage Building DOST Compound, General Santos Avenue Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel. Nos. (632) 837-1359, (632) 839-0241, Fax No. (632) 837-1924 http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph / www.science-scholarships.ph and

Request for permission to use any material from this publication or for further information should be addressed to the copyright holders.

Printed in Metro Manila, Philippines

http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph/

http://www.science-scholarships.ph/

FOREWORD

Based on the recent estimates of the United Nations, there are about 214 million international migrants in the entire world, with the Philippines as a major contributor, along with China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico. As of 2009, there are already about 8.5 million Filipino migrants, per records of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO). The United Nations also projected a 175,000 outflow of Filipinos every year. Moreover, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Philippines is among the top countries of origin in terms of the absolute number of doctors and nurses in OECD countries.

Given this scenario, it is worth looking at the extent of migration in the Philippines,

particularly of the Science and Technology workers. While the data of POEA and CFO give us a general outflow of Filipino migrants, it is interesting to focus on the Human Resources in Science and Technology given its significant role in economic advancement.

This study, which is the second part of the International Migration of Science and

Technology Human Resources Study, is thus timely, as it attempts to do an accounting of the outflow of S&T human capital. While the first report, “Emigration of Science and Technology Educated Filipinos, 1998-2006”, which was published in 2008, dealt with permanent migrants, this second report deals with temporary migrants, more commonly known as overseas contract workers, with S&T occupations.

Together with the first report, it is hoped that findings from this study would be used as

bases for human resource development policies and provide inputs for crafting strategies that would increase and maintain the pool of S&T human resource in the country.

FILMA G. BRAWNER, Ph.D. Director

Science Education Institute

International Migration of Science and Technology (S&T) Manpower - OFWs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The demand for highly skilled workers, including those educated to tertiary level, has become a global competition as the role of science and technology (S&T) manpower in economic development is increasingly recognized. In 2010, there are about 214 million international migrants in the entire world, according to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA, 2009). Most of the host countries are the developed countries while the sending countries are mostly the less developed ones, with Asia as the major source of migrants during 2000-2010, averaging 1.3 million annually.

At the country level, the Philippines belongs to the top sending countries along with

China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico. As of 2009, there are about 8.5 million Filipino migrants, according to the general data on the stock estimate of overseas Filipinos. Given this global picture and local figures, it is worth looking at the extent of migration in the Philippines, particularly of the S&T workers. While the data of POEA and CFO give us a general outflow of Filipino migrants, it is interesting to focus on the Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST) given its significant role in economic advancement.


Technology Manpower study, is an initial attempt of doing an accounting of outflow of S&T human capital using data from CFO and POEA. While the first report dealt with permanent migrants, this second report deals with overseas Filipino contract workers with occupations classified as S&T using the POEA data from 1998 to 2009. It is aimed at providing a general description of the rate of outflow of S&T manpower, disaggregating the data by sex, specific occupations, major regional destinations and top host countries, and average income for selected occupations, also merit discussion.

The data were downloaded from the POEA website, which were then processed,

reclassified based on the Canberra Manual, developed by OECD, UNESCO, and ILO, which gives the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), delineating S&T from non-S&T occupations, and analyzed using the PASW Statistics version 18.0 software. Considered as S&T occupations are: Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals; Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Professionals; Computing Professionals; Engineers and Related Professionals; Life Science Professionals; Health Professionals; and Nursing and Midwifery Professionals.

Results of the analysis indicate that stock estimates of overseas Filipinos, both permanent and temporary migrants are steadily increasing annually from 2000 to 2009. In particular, the stock of workers who temporarily leave the country or the OFWs, which is the focus of the paper, has been rising with an average annual growth rate of 3.1 percent. From almost 3 million workers in 2000, the stock of temporary workers has grown to about 4 million in 2009.

In terms of S&T classification, the average proportion of OFWs with S&T occupations

that leave the country every year is six percent (6%), which translates to an absolute value of 16,000 S&T OFWs, on the average, every year for the past 12 years. The highest percentage of S&T OFWs who left the country was in 2009 (7%) while the lowest was in 1999 (2%).

Disaggregating further by specific group of S&T occupations, the level of nursing and

midwifery professionals leaving the country was consistently the highest across the years. More than half of S&T OFWs were nurses and midwives in almost all years except in 1998, 2007, and 2008, wherein percentage in those years was just a little less than a half. The group is followed by the engineers and related professionals, as well as health professionals. On average, around 3 to 4 out of 10 S&T OFWs were engineers while 7 to 10 percent of S&T OFWs are doctors and related professionals. In terms of volume, the engineering professional group was apparently increasing in the recent years while the group of health professionals had negligible change through the years.

Disaggregating by sex, there were more female S&T migrants than male ones across the

years, which was particularly pronounced in 2001, wherein almost three quarters of S&T workers who left the country to work abroad were women. Over the 12-year period from 1998 to 2009, the ratio of female to male S&T OFWs was highest in 2000-2005 in which at least two female for every male left the country to work abroad.

The distribution of S&T OFWs by region of destination shows consistent dominance of

the Middle East over the years, followed by Europe, Americas/Trust Territories and Asia. In terms of percentage, average in the past 12 years show that about seven out of ten, or about 70% of S&T OFWs who leave the country every year went to the Middle East to work. Among the favorite countries of destination of S&T OFWs besides Saudi Arabia are United Arab Emirates, United States and Singapore, which rank consistently among the top ten countries of destination in the last 12 years.

CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2

Scope and Limitations ........................................................................................................... 2

Methodology/Data Processing ......................................................................... ................... 3

Results and Discussion

Stock of Migrants ………...................................…………………………………... 4

Stock of Temporary Migrants by Region ……………………………………...... 7

Annual Flow of Newly-hired Temporary Migrants by Region ........................ 8

Annual Flow of Re-hired Temporary Migrants by Region ............................... 9

Annual Flow of Newly-hired OFWs by Major Occupational Group .............. 10

Annual Flow of Newly-hired OFWs by S&T Occupation ................................. 11

Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Sex ....................................................................... 13

Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Region ................................................................ 14

Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Specific Group of Occupations ....................... 15

Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Specific Group of Occupations and Sex ......... 16

Top Ten Countries of Destination of S&T OFWs ................................................ 18

S&T OFWs in Saudi Arabia .................................................................................... 19

S&T OFWs in United Arab Emirates ..................................................................... 20

S&T OFWs in United States of America ............................................................... 21

S&T OFWs in Singapore ......................................................................................... 22

S&T OFWs in United Kingdom ............................................................................. 23

Average Monthly Income by S&T Occupation ................................................... 24

Summary and Conclusions ……………………………..................................................... 26

Recommendations ………………………………........................................……………… 27

References ………................................................................................................................. 31

Annexes Annex A: List of Specific Occupations Belong to the Core Coverage Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST) .…................................ 34

Annex B: Other Tables .……………………………………...............................… 35

Annex C: List of Participants of Consultative Meeting ..................................... 53

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of coverage for data collection, by occupation 4

Table 2. Top Ten Countries of Destination by Average Rank, Frequency of Occurrence, and Average Number of S&T OFWs during the Period of 1998-2009 18

Table 3. Average Monthly Income of S&T OFWs by Specific Occupation, 2009 25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Stock Estimates of Overseas Filipinos by Type of Migrants, 2000-2009 5

Figure 2. Stock Estimate of Overseas Filipinos as of December 2009 6

Figure 3. Stock Estimates of Temporary Migrants by Region, 2000-2009 8

Figure 4. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants (New Hires Only) by Region, 1998-2009 9

Figure 5. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants (Re-Hires) by Region, 1998-2009 10

Figure 6. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants by Major Occupational Group (New Hires Only), 1998-2009 11

Figure 7. Annual Flow of Temporary OFWs (New Hires Only) by S&T classification, 1998-2009 12

Figure 8. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Sex, 1998-2009 13

Figure 9. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Region, 1998-2009 14

Figure 10. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Occupation, 1998-2009 15

Figure 11. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Major Occupation and Sex, 1998-2009 (Level) 17

Figure 12. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Major Occupation and Sex, 1998-2009 (Percentage) 17

Figure 13. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in Saudi Arabia by Major Group of Occupations 19

Figure 14. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United Arab Emirates by Major Group of Occupations 20

Figure 15. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United States of America by Major Group of Occupations 21

Figure 16. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in Singapore by Major Group of Occupations 22

Figure 17. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United Kingdom by Major Group of Occupations 23

International Migration of Science and Technology (S&T) Manpower - OFWs 1

Introduction

As the role of science and technology (S&T) manpower in economic development is increasingly recognized, the demand for highly skilled (HS) workers in many developed countries becomes a global competition. Also, globalization stirs up the rising magnitude of all migration; in particular, a growing proportion of migrants is highly skilled, or educated to tertiary level. Available data revealed that there is a significant net flow of HS from developing countries to developed countries (POST, 2008).

In 2010, there are about 214 million international migrants in the entire world, according

to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA, 2009). Most of the host countries are the developed countries while the sending countries are mostly the less developed ones. Specifically, during 2000-2010, net migration to more developed regions as a whole, changes moderately, reaching a peak of 2.9 million migrants annually, and this is projected to remain at about 2.4 million per year, of which 1.3 million are directed to Northern America. Asia, on the other hand, was the major source of migrants during 2000-2010 (1.3 million annually). According to the UN DESA projections, more than half of all the net number of emigrants from the less developed regions is expected to be from Asia.

At the country level, the Philippines belongs to the top sending countries along with

China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico. In the UN DESA International Migration 2009 Wallchart, Philippines has a negative annual average net migration (2005-2010) of 180 thousand or a negative rate of 2 persons per thousand population, which is the highest among the Southeast Asian Countries. As of 2009, there are about 8.5 million Filipino migrants, according to the general data on the stock estimate of overseas Filipinos (CFO, 2009). The United Nations also projected a 175,000 outflow of Filipinos every year (UN DESA, 2009). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007), based on Census 2000 data, Philippines is among the top countries of origin in terms of the absolute number of doctors in OECD countries (around 16,000). With over 110,000 Filipino nurses working in OECD countries, the Philippines is considered to be the main country of origin for nurses.

Given the above-mentioned global picture and local figures, it is worth looking at the

extent of migration in the Philippines, particularly of the S&T workers. While the data of POEA and CFO give us a general outflow of Filipino migrants, it is interesting to focus on the Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST) given its significant role in economic advancement. Aside from providing a general description of the rate of outflow of S&T manpower, disaggregating the data by sex, specific occupations, major regional destinations and top host countries, and average income for selected occupations, also merit discussion.


Technology Manpower study, is an initial attempt of doing an accounting of outflow of S&T human capital using data from CFO and POEA. While the first report, “Emigration of Science and Technology Educated Filipinos, 1998-2006”, which was published in 2008 dealt with permanent migrants, this second report deals with overseas Filipino contract workers with S&T occupations classified as S&T using the POEA data from 1998 to 2009. Together with the first


report, findings from this study could be used as bases for policies that may be formulated to address the issue of S&T human resource migration.

Objectives

Generally, this study aims to examine the extent of S&T skills migration in the Philippines, complementing the first report, which focused on migration of S&T-educated workers who have chosen to migrate permanently in other countries. The main objective is to make an accounting of the temporary Filipino overseas contract workers who had occupations classified as S&T, based on international standard.

Specifically, it seeks to attain the following objectives:

1. to describe the overall trend of annual outflow of S&T overseas Filipino workers

(OFWs) from 1998-2009; 2. to determine the number of S&T OFWs disaggregated by sex, regional

classification of countries of destination, major groups of S&T occupations, and average income;

3. to describe the S&T occupations of OFWs by sex, regional classification of countries of destination, and average income; and

4. to identify the top countries of destination and top specific S&T occupations of OFWs.

Finally, based on the findings, this study intends to provide policy implications and recommendations, relevant in dealing with the issue of migration in the country.

Scope and Limitations

While there are already existing statistics and studies on making an accounting of OFWs in general, regardless of occupation, this study focuses on OFWs with S&T occupations or the so-called Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST). For the purpose of international comparability, the study adopted the basic definition of HRST as stated in the Canberra Manual, which was developed by OECD, UNESCO, and International Labor Organization (ILO):

HRST are people who fulfill one or other of the following conditions: a) successfully completed education at the third level in an S&T field of study; b) not formally qualified as above, but employed in an S&T occupation where above qualifications are normally required (OECD, 1995).

For this study, only the second condition was followed since educational attainment of

OFWs was not included in the databases maintained by POEA.

The POEA data can only give a picture of annual outflow of OFWs, exclusive for every year but not cumulative for all years. In other words, summing up the number of OFWs across


years will not provide a current overall figure of OFWs. Also, the data used in the analysis were limited to the available information regarding OFWs provided by POEA, namely, sex, skill or occupation, country of destination, and, to some extent, income. Other relevant factors like educational attainment, previous local work experience and income, and reason for leaving the country were not available and therefore, cannot be discussed in this study. Furthermore, according to POEA, the said basic information was gathered from registered or legitimate recruitment agencies based on the contract signed by the OFWs. Therefore, OFWs who did not go through legal recruitment agencies as well as those who were directly hired by agencies and companies abroad were not captured by the database of POEA.

Methodology/Data Processing

The method used in this study is descriptive secondary data analysis. For this second report, the existing databases of POEA, which contain information on OFWs like sex, occupation, income, and country of destination, were utilized. Most of the data were downloaded from the POEA website, which were then processed, reclassified, and analyzed using the Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) Statistics 18. Some of the data, particularly the income, were directly provided by POEA. Reclassification of S&T occupations, which would comprise the coverage of Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST), is based on the Canberra Manual, which gives the international standard list of occupations considered as S&T developed by OECD, UNESCO, and ILO. According to the manual’s recommendation, coverage of HRST has three (3) options; it can be in terms of education, occupation, or combined. Due to data limitation, the study followed the coverage in terms of occupation. As stated in the Canberra Manual using international standard codes of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), Table 1 presents the list of coverage for data collection, by occupation.


Table 1.

In terms of the extent of coverage, the grouping can be core, extended, or complete depending on the countries’ particular needs. In this study, HRST only includes groups of occupations considered as core coverage, namely, Physical, Mathematical and Engineering Science Professionals (ISCO-88 21) and Life Science and Health Professionals (ISCO-88 22).

Considered as S&T occupations are: Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals;

Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Professionals; Computing Professionals; Engineers and Related Professionals; Life Science Professionals; Health Professionals; and Nursing and Midwifery Professionals (For the complete list of S&T occupations, refer to Annex A.).

Results and Discussion

Stock of Migrants

The stock estimates of overseas Filipinos show that temporary migrants dominate in terms of volume from 2000 to 2007 compared with permanent migrants, however more recent data, from 2008 to 2009 show that temporary migrants have been surpassed by the latter (Figure 1). The total migrant stock increased from 7.3 million in 2000 to 8.6 million by year 2009, with an average annual growth rate of 1.7 (Annex B1). The rise in the stock is particularly noticeable from 2000 to 2007 with 18.2 percent change.

The stock of permanent emigrants is steadily increasing annually from 2000 to 2009, with

an average annual growth rate of 5.3 percent. Particularly pronounced growth rate is seen between 2003 and 2004, in which the increase amounted to 11.2 percent change. Overall


increase from 2000 to 2009 is more than half (59%), from 2.6 million in 2000 to more than 4 million by year 2009.

The stock of workers who temporarily left the country has likewise been rising with an

average annual growth rate of 3.1 percent (Annex B1), except during the 2007-2008 period, in which a negative annual rate (-12.3%) was noted. From almost 3 million workers in 2000, almost 4 million temporary workers left the country in 2009. The growth, however, is at a slower pace than that of permanent migrants. One apparent reason is that temporary workers are more dynamic and mobile as most of them could leave and return to the country every now and then, while permanent migrants by definition stay in the country of destination and their numbers add on cumulatively.

As to the irregular workers who were not properly documented or without valid residence

or work permits, or who are overstaying in a foreign country, their proportion appears to be declining with an average annual decline of 9.9 percent, with the highest decline in 2004-2005 (32.1%). Their share to the overall stock of migrants has dropped tremendously from 25 percent in 2000 to only about 8 percent in 2009. From 1.8 million in 2000, the number of irregular workers declined to only a little more than a half million in 2009. This enormous drop could be an indication of better implementation of laws and policies against illegal migration both in our country and in destination country.

Source of basic data: CFO

Figure 1. Stock Estimates of Overseas Filipinos by Type of Migrants, 2000-2009


Looking at the latest stock estimate of Filipino migrants tallied by CFO as of December 2009 (Figure 2), 47 percent of the 8.6 million migrants are permanent migrants while 45 percent are temporary workers. The remaining 8 percent are irregular migrants. The recent increase in the number of permanent migrants, which is more than that of the temporary migrants, is indicative of cumulative effect of increasing number of immigrants along with pull factors of host countries like family reunification policy particularly in the Western countries (NSB, 2010). However, this does not mean that the number of temporary migrants is decreasing but rather it increasing as well although at a slower pace because of the dynamic movement of contract workers, which is circular in nature.

Figure 2. Stock Estimate of Overseas Filipinos as of December 2009


Stock of Temporary Migrants by Region

The distribution of the stock of temporary migrants by destination shows the dominance of Middle East, followed by Asia (Figure 3). From 1.1 million migrant workers who left the country to work in the Middle East in 2000, the number consistently increased over the years with the number doubling (2.3 million) in 2009. In terms of proportion, more than half (59%) of temporary migrants were working in the Middle East in 2008 and 2009.

The rest of Asia is another significant destination of temporary migrants. Unlike the case

in Middle East, however, the number of temporary workers in Asia is decreasing both in terms of volume and percentage. From 992 thousand (or 31%) temporary migrants who left the country to work in Asia in 2000, the number went down to only 552 thousand (or 14%) in 2009.

Europe and Americas including Trust Territories also share a small portion yet significant

6-digit volume of temporary migrants. On the average, there is about half a million Filipinos who left the country to work in Europe from 2000 to 2007, but the number dropped to only around 300 thousand in 2008 and 2009. In terms of proportion, the share of Europe is close to a quarter from 2000 to 2007 but declined recently to only 8 percent in 2008 and 2009. On the other hand, the volume of Filipinos who worked temporarily in Americas and Trust Territories numbers to about a quarter of a million in 2000, which has not changed much until 2009. It reached around 300 to 350 thousand between 2005 and 2007. The share of Americas’ and Trust Territories’ is only a single-digit percent ranging from 7 to 9 percent; the highest is in 2002 while the lowest is in 2009.


Source of basic data: CFO

Figure 3. Stock Estimates of Temporary Migrants by Region, 2000-2009

Annual Flow of Newly-Hired Temporary Migrants by Region

For the annual flow of newly-hired OFWs, the pattern of the distribution is the same as that of the stock and of re-hires (Figure 4). The Middle East and Asia are also the dominating destinations of new hires among the regions. The graph shows increasing trend both in volume and percentage of OFWs who were working in the Middle East while a decreasing trend can be observed among OFWs in the rest of Asia. From about 87 thousand (40%) OFWs in the Middle East in 1998, the number was recently up to more than 240 thousand (74%) in 2009, while the number of OFWs in Asia declined from more than 100 thousand (54%) in 2000 to only around 61 thousand (18%) in 2009. Studies noted that the restriction on the flow of entertainers both by POEA and destination countries, particularly Japan, is a main cause of reduction in recent flows in the Asian region (Orbeta and Abrigo, 2009).

Aside from the Middle East and Asia, Europe and Americas (including Trust Territories)

are also destinations of some newly-hired OFWs. The proportion of newly-hired OFWs is a little larger in Americas/Trust Territories (3%) than in Europe (2%), which is the other way around in


the case of re-hired OFWs. The number of OFWs who worked in these regions has doubled between 1998 and 2009, from around 3 thousand to more than 6 thousand in Europe and in Americas and Trust Territories, from 5 thousand to almost 12 thousand.

Figure 4. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants (New Hires Only) by Region, 1998-2009

Annual Flow of Re-hired Temporary Migrants by Region

Like the stock distribution, the spread of the annual flow of re-hired temporary migrants by region also depicts a large share of Middle East, followed by Asia (Figure 5). Evidently, the graph shows increasing volume of Filipino workers leaving the country to work in the Middle East from 1998-2009, except for a drop in 2003; the number has increased by 59%, from around 193 thousand in 1998 to about more than 420 thousand by 2009. On the other hand, unlike the Middle East that consistently experiences increases in the proportion of OFWs from 1998 to 2009, Asia has decreasing share from 45 percent in 1998 to 35 percent in 2009. In terms of absolute figures, however, the increase is only 7 percent, from more than 187 thousand in 1998 to around 200 thousand in 2009.

Europe and Americas (including Trust Territories) are also important destinations of re-

hired OFWs. The share of Europe is from about 4 to 8 percent while Americas’ and Trust Territories’ share is from 2 to 4 percent between 1998 and 2009. Volume-wise, the number of


OFWs who worked in Europe increased from around 23 thousand in 1998 to more than 41 thousand in 2009. Also, the volume of OFWs who worked in Americas/Trust Territories more than doubled during the same period, from almost 12 thousand in 1998 to 25 thousand in 2009.

Figure 5. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants (Re-Hires) by Region, 1998-2009

Annual Flow of Newly-hired OFWs by Major Occupational Group

In terms of occupation, the prevailing groups are service workers, production process workers, transport and labourers, and professionals, technical, and related workers (Figure 6). A great majority of OFWs are service workers and production workers (average of 38% and 30%, respectively). Conversely, on average, there are about 25 percent of OFWs who are professional, technical, and related workers in the period of 1998-2009. This significant proportion is notable since most of the OFWs in the said group are highly educated, which is a loss for the country. The annual flow of professionals, however, is fluctuating over the years: between 1998 and 2002, the trend is increasing, from 55 thousand OFWs in 1998 to almost 100 thousand in 2002. In 2003, it dropped to 79 thousand; increased to 94 thousand in 2004, which decreased again to


around 64 thousand in 2005, until finally, in recent years, the number is now lower than 50 thousand.

The professional group is primarily composed of medical and allied health professionals

(particularly nurses & midwives), engineers and related professionals, and composers and performing artists. One primary cause of the recent decline in the proportion of professionals among the temporary migrants may be the stricter policies by the POEA and in destination countries, especially in Japan, in the deployment of performing artists (Orbeta and Abrigo, 2009).

Figure 6. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants by Major Occupational Group (New Hires Only), 1998-2009

Annual Flow of Newly-Hired OFWs by S&T Occupation

In general, the annual flow of newly hired OFWs shows an upward trend, except for a sudden drop in 2003 (Figure 7). From 1998 to 2009, the total number of OFWs increased by 51 percent, from almost 220 thousand in 1998 to around 332 thousand in 2009. The highest surge of OFWs was in 2008 at almost 340 thousand while the lowest was in 1998 at around 220 thousand OFWs.

In terms of S&T classification, the proportion of OFWs with S&T occupations is 6 percent, on the average of the 12-year annual flows (Figure 7). Number-wise, there is an average


annual flow of 16 thousand OFWs who are considered S&T workers in the past 12 years. The highest percentage of S&T OFWs who left the country was in 2009 (7%) while the lowest was in 1999 (2%).

In terms of S&T classification, the proportion of OFWs with S&T occupations is six

percent (6%), on the average of the 12-year annual flows (see Figure 7). Number-wise, there is an average annual flow of 16 thousand OFWs who are considered S&T workers in the past 12 years. The highest percentage of S&T OFWs who left the country was in 2009 (7%) while the lowest was in 1999 (2%).

Figure 7. Annual Flow of Temporary OFWs (New Hires Only) by S&T classification, 1998-2009


Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Sex

Figure 8 presents the number of OFWs with S&T occupations by sex. The data show tremendous increase in the outflow of Filipino S&T workers from 9,877 in 1998 to 24,502 in 2009, amounting to an increase of about 148 percent. As to sex disaggregation, consistently there are more female S&T migrants than male ones across the years, which is particularly pronounced in 2001, wherein almost three quarters of S&T workers who left the country to work abroad are women. Over the 12-year period from 1998 to 2009, the ratio of female to male S&T OFWs is highest in 2000-2005 in which at least two (2) female for every male left the country to work abroad.

Figure 8. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Sex, 1998-2009


Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Region

As shown in Figure 9, the distribution of S&T OFWs by destination shows consistent dominance of the Middle East over the years. Significant proportions of S&T OFWs in Europe, Americas/Trust Territories, and Asia are also observable in some particular years. Between 1998 and 2009, the outflow of Filipino S&T workers in the Middle East increased in volume by 166%, from around 7,700 in 1998 to more than 20,400 in 2009. In the period 2000-2002, there is a noticeable upsurge of S&T OFWs who left the country to work for Europe. In particular, the number increased to more than 7,000 in 2003 from only 98 in 1998. The swift rise could be primarily a result of active and deliberate international recruitment of nurses by the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK (Buchan, 2006).

In Americas/Trust Territories, the number of S&T OFWs is specifically pronounced in

2005 and 2008 (4,000 and 1,400, respectively); other years only have less than a thousand. On the other hand, those who worked in Asia number a little higher in the recent years with more than a thousand S&T OFWs.

In terms of percentage, on average of the 12 year period, about 7 out of 10 S&T OFWs

work in the Middle East. A quite distant next destination that has a significant percentage share over the years is Europe with 11 percent. However, this share recently dropped to only 1 percent. Moreover, Americas’ share of S&T OFWs is at 7 percent while Asia comprised 6 percent of all S&T OFWs.

Figure 9. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Region, 1998-2009


Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Specific Group of Occupations

Figure 10 presents the level and percentage of S&T OFWs by specific group of S&T occupations. As can be observed, the level of nursing and midwifery professionals leaving the country is consistently the highest across the years, compared with those of the other core occupations. Notably, the highest volume of nurses and midwives is in 2001, which confirms the study of Buchan (2006) about the active recruitment of Filipino nurses in the United Kingdom. The group is followed by engineers and related professionals, as well as health professionals. In terms of volume, the engineering professional group is apparently increasing in recent years while the group of health professionals has negligible change through the years.

Consequently, in terms of percentage, the group of nursing and midwifery professionals is

also the highest across the years. More than half of S&T OFWs are nurses and midwives in almost all years except in 1998, 2007, and 2008, wherein percentage in each of those years is just a little less than a half (48.0%, 47.2% and 48.9%, respectively). A distant second to the highest percentage group are engineering and related professionals, followed by health professionals. On average, around 3 to 4 out of 10 S&T OFWs are engineers while 7 to 10 percent of S&T OFWs are doctors and similar professions.

Figure 10. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Occupation, 1998-2009


Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Specific Group of Occupations and Sex

A different picture of annual outflow of S&T OFWs by specific group of occupations is observable once disaggregated by sex (Figure 11). While the group of nursing and midwifery professionals is dominant among the female S&T workers abroad, the group of engineering and related professionals is prevailing among male S&T OFWs across the years. Volume-wise, the annual flow of nurses and midwives among female S&T OFWs ranges from about 4 thousand to 12 thousand, whereas, the yearly number of outbound engineers, the group of occupations comprised mostly by male S&T OFWs, is from around 2 thousand to almost 9 thousand.

Health professionals are next to the highest group of occupations among female S&T

OFWs. Conversely, aside from engineering professionals, there is also significant number of nurses and midwives as well as health professionals among male S&T OFWs. Particularly in 2001, the volume of nurses and midwives among male S&T migrants is higher than that of engineers.

In terms of percentage (Figure 12), the share of nursing and midwifery professionals is

evidently prominent among female S&T migrant workers across the years; on average, 8 to 9 out of 10 female S&T OFWs are nurses and midwives. Among male migrant workers, majority are engineers in almost all years, except in early 2000, wherein a significant proportion is comprised of nurses and midwives. Doctors as well as computing professionals also share a substantial proportion among both males and females.


Figure 11. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Major Occupation and Sex, 1998-2009 (Level)

Figure 12. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Major Occupation and Sex, 1998-2009 (Percentage)


Top Ten Countries of Destination of S&T OFWs

Table 2 displays the top ten countries of destination, their average rank, frequency of occurrence, i.e., the number of times a country had ranked among the top ten, and the average number of S&T OFWs during the period of 1998-2009. As can be observed in the table, half or five of the top ten are Middle East countries. Saudi Arabia ranks consistently 1st as the highest receiving country of S&T OFWs in the past 12 years. There is a relatively larger number of S&T Filipino workers who go to Saudi Arabia compared to other countries. On average, there are more than 9 thousand S&T workers who left the country to work in Saudi Arabia.

Among the favorite countries of destination of S&T OFWs besides Saudi Arabia are United Arab Emirates, United States and Singapore, which rank consistently among the top ten countries of destination in the last 12 years (3rd, 4th , and 5th, accordingly). More than a thousand of S&T OFWs work in the UAE. The United States, which is a popular destination by common knowledge, only has almost 6 hundred S&T OFWs, on average, in the last 12 years. However, this could be an underestimation since the counting excludes OFWs who were hired thru Employment-based Immigration scheme, a usual mode of US hiring especially for nurses and midwives. More than 5 hundred S&T workers left the country to work for Singapore.

A far distant next to Saudi Arabia in terms of number is United Kingdom (UK) with an average of 2 thousand S&T OFWs. In terms of frequency of occurrence though, UK only has 7 times being among the top ten countries of destination in the past 12 years. Other top ten countries of destination of S&T OFWs are Kuwait, Qatar, Libya, Ireland, and Bahrain. (See Annex B15 for the Number of S&T OFWs by Top Ten Countries of Destination, 1998-2009.)

Table 2. Top Ten Countries of Destination by Average Rank, Frequency of Occurrence, and Average Number of S&T OFWs during the Period of 1998-2009

Country Average Rank

Frequency of

Occurrence

Average No. of S&T

OFWs Saudi Arabia (Middle East) 1.0 12 9066

United Arab Emirates (Middle East) 3.4 12 1030

United States (Americas) 4.3 12 581

Singapore (Asia) 5.1 12 521

Kuwait (Middle East) 6.2 11 356

Qatar (Middle East) 4.9 10 836

Libya (Africa) 7.5 10 282

Ireland (Europe) 6.4 7 521

United Kingdom (Europe) 2.4 7 2165

Bahrain (Middle East) 9.0 6 190


S&T OFWs in Saudi Arabia

The annual outflow of S&T OFWs in Saudi Arabia is shown in Figure 13. In recent years (2006-2009), the number of Filipino S&T workers who migrated temporarily to Saudi Arabia is continuously increasing from around 9 thousand to more than 16 thousand, the highest volume in 12 years. On average, there are about 9 thousand S&T OFWs in Saudi Arabia; 65 percent of them are nursing and midwifery professionals; 22 percent are engineering and related professionals; 11 percent are health professionals; and the remaining 2 percent are computing, life science, mathematicians, statisticians, physicists, chemists and related professionals.

Figure 13. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in Saudi Arabia by Major Group of Occupations


S&T OFWs in United Arab Emirates

In United Arab Emirates (UAE), increasing outflow of engineers is very apparent in the recent years (Figure 14). On average, engineers comprised 45 percent of all S&T OFWs in UAE, which is higher than nurses at 42 percent. Pronounced increase is seen in 2008 with almost 2 thousand Filipino engineers leaving the country to work in UAE. Aside from engineers and nurses, health and computing professionals also have a bit considerable number of S&T OFWs working in UEA (107 and 18, on average, accordingly).

Figure 14. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United Arab Emirates by Major Group of Occupations


S&T OFWs in the United States of America

Figure 15 displays the annual outflow of S&T OFWs to the United States of America (USA). Unexpectedly, there are only about 6 hundred S&T OFWs in the USA, on average. As stated earlier, underestimation is assumed because POEA data do not capture OFWs hired thru Employment-based Immigration scheme.

The trend of the distribution of S&T OFWs in the USA by occupation shows that the

group of computing professionals is the highest among S&T professions in early years (1998- 2000). Also, in the period of 1998-2000, the number of engineers is apparently higher than that of nurses and midwives. It is only in 2001 that the volume of nurses and midwives began to surge up until 2009; the highest volume was around 6 hundred in 2008. Data also show that the volume of computing professionals shrunk starting 2002 until 2005. Conversely, the annual outflow of engineering and related professionals is relatively and substantially less wavering across the years compared to that of other professions. On average, there are more than 100 hundred engineers who leave the country in a year to work as contract workers in USA.

Figure 15. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United States of America by Major Group of Occupations


S&T OFWs in Singapore

The annual volume of S&T OFWs that go to Singapore recently peaked in 2009 with more than 9 hundred, mostly composed of nurses and midwives as well as engineers and related professionals (Figure 16). Starting in 2001 until 2005, the yearly flow of S&T Filipino migrant workers in Singapore is decreasing particularly the number of engineers and related professionals. However, from 2006 the volume begins to increase until 2009. Besides nursing and midwifery professionals and engineering and related professionals, a relatively considerable annual outflow of health professionals is also seen particularly in 2000, which was of higher magnitude than that of engineers.

Figure 16. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in Singapore by Major Group of Occupations


S&T OFWs in the United Kingdom

Figure 17 shows the distribution of S&T OFWs in the United Kingdom by occupation. The dominance of nurses and midwives is clearly evident in the figure with an average volume of more than one thousand. The outflow of nursing and midwifery professionals peaked in 2001 with more than 5 thousand, and began to subside in 2002 until the most recent year with only more than a hundred. Aside from nurses and midwives, there are also a number of health professionals and engineers who temporarily work in the United Kingdom (25 and 14, on average, respectively).

Figure 17. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United Kingdom by Major Group of Occupations


Average Monthly Income by S&T Occupation

Table 3 shows the average monthly income of S&T OFWs by occupation in 2009. The income data, however, are limited only to those whose incomes were indicated in their contracts. Only 7% (1,766) of all S&T OFWs (24,502) in 2009 are included in the data. Despite this limitation, these figures may provide an indication as to how much S&T OFWs earn abroad, which is a major pull factor for leaving the country.

In general, the figures confirm that S&T OFWs have high paying jobs abroad with most

of them having 6-digit incomes. Among S&T OFW occupations, physical scientists have the highest earnings with a monthly income amounting to an average of Php 665,191. In fact, the maximum earning of a physical scientist is close to a million pesos per month (Php 984,833) showing how rare and highly-valued this profession is, both in the country and abroad. Conversely, the least that an S&T OFW receives is Php37,594 per month, on average, which is earned by a dietitian or public health nutritionist; the said amount is still relatively higher compared to the salary being received by their local counterparts who have the same profession.

Professional nurses, which comprise the largest proportion of S&T OFWs, earn more

than 100 thousand a month, on average; they earn a minimum of Php 22,883 and a maximum of more than a half million (Php 638,223). Engineers’ monthly income, on the other hand, varies depending on their specialization: the highest paying job among the engineering fields is ship engineering at an average monthly income of Php 203,375 while the lowest is chemical engineering at Php 47,637.


Table 3. Average Monthly Income of S&T OFWs by Specific Occupation, 2009

S&T Occupation Average Monthly Income (In Dollars)

Average Monthly Income (In Pesos)*

Minimum (In Pesos)

Maximum (In Pesos)

No. of OFWs

Physical Scientists 13,964 665,191 345,549 984,833 2

Mathematicians and Actuaries 7,083 337,429 337,429 337,429 2

Doctors Medical 5,566 265,163 119,093 593,784 23

Bacteriologists, Pharmacologists and Related 5,003 238,308 220,050 256,567 2 Scientists

Engineers Ship’s 4,269 203,375 159,408 238,185 5

Systems Analysts 3,455 164,583 71,456 199,203 5

Engineers Industrial 2,907 138,477 35,394 391,248 58

2,656 126,511 121,546 131,475 3

Engineers Mining/Mineral Mining

Engineers Electrical and Electronics

2,646 126,031 29,422 471,606 121

Engineers ( N E C ) 2,598 123,745 23,819 524,007 319

Statisticians, Mathematicians and Systems Analysts 2,564 122,151 22,151 266,287 14

Architects and Town Planners 2,443 116,380 26,152 376,990 73

Engineers Civil 2,394 114,021 38,110 339,291 398

Chemists 2,235 106,483 30,964 244,704 5

Nurses Professional 2,126 101,288 22,883 638,223 499

Medical Dental Veterinary Related Workers 2,000 95,264 20,008 157,202 20

Engineers Mechanical 1,942 92,516 28,582 329,866 202

Veterinarians 1,853 88,277 76,516 104,801 5

Optometrists and Opticians 1,582 75,360 16,345 118,030 3

Pharmacists 1,489 70,920 56,773 83,997 4

Engineers Chemical 1,000 47,637 47,637 47,637 2

Dietitian/Public Health Nutritionist 789 37,594 37,594 37,594 1

TOTAL 1,766 Source: 2009 POEA Data * $1 = Php47.637 (2009 Average Peso-Dollar rate - NSCB)


Summary and Conclusions

• The stock estimates or estimated total number of Filipino temporary migrants (those who leave the country to work abroad on a temporary basis) is steadily increasing with an average growth rate of 3.1 percent, for the period 2000-2009. From almost 3 million workers in 2000, the number of temporary migrants grew to almost 4 million in 2009.

• In terms of region of destination, majority of stock of temporary migrants is in the Middle

East, followed by Asia. A small percentage is in Europe and the Americas, which in absolute values translate into hundreds of thousands.

• For the annual flow of newly hired OFWs, the trend is similar to that of the stock

estimates, with the Middle East as the major destination, followed by Asia. In general, an upward trend, is observed, except for a sudden drop in 2003. From 1998 to 2009, the total number of OFWs increased by 51%, from almost 220,000 in 1998 to around 332,000 in 2009.

• In terms of occupation, of the annual flow of newly hired OFWs, 38% are service

workers, 30% are production process workers, and 25% are professionals, technical, and related workers, on the average from the period 1998-2009.

• Segregating those with occupations classified as S&T, the proportion of OFWs with S&T

occupations is 6%, on the average of the 12-year annual flows, translating into an annual flow of 16,000 S&T OFWs. The highest percentage of S&T OFWs who left the country was in 2009 (7%) while the lowest was in 1999 (2%).

• In absolute figures, the outflow of Filipino S&T workers are from 9,877 in 1998 to

24,502 in 2009, amounting to an increase of about 148%.

• As to sex disaggregation, consistently there were more female S&T temporary migrants than male ones across the years. Over the 12-year period from 1998 to 2009, the ratio of female to male S&T OFWs was highest in 2000-2005 at 2:1.

• Majority of S&T OFWs are nursing and midwifery professionals, followed by engineers

and related professionals, as well as health professionals. In terms of volume, the engineering professional group is increasing in the recent years while the group of health professionals has not changed much.

• Five of the top ten countries of destination are Middle East countries with Saudi Arabia

as the the top receiving country of S&T OFWs in the past 12 years. Besides Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United States and Singapore are also favored as countries


of destination. Table 3 displays the average monthly income of S&T OFWs by occupation in 2009.

• The income data, although limited indicate that S&T OFWs have high paying jobs abroad

with most of them having 6-digit income. Among S&T OFW occupations and on average, physical scientists have the highest earnings while the lowest is earned by dietitian or public health nutritionist. Nevertheless, the said amount is still relatively higher compared to that earned locally by a person with the same profession.

Recommendations

The initial results were presented to stakeholders to obtain insights and recommendations that could be used by decision-makers in developing policies that would increase and sustain the S&T human resource and foster S&T human resource development in the country. (Refer to Annex C for the list of participants of the consultative meeting.) The following are the recommendations given during the consultative meeting with them:

On the need for more information on OFWs:

• Use of NSO data particularly Labor Force Survey (LFS) data, which is conducted every

quarter and obtains information on educational attainment of every member and whether or not he/she is an OFW.

• Although LFS covers only a small part of the population, it can provide estimates of

number of OFWs with degrees on engineering, medical course and other groups of occupation and data trend.

• Look into the possibility of coordinating with the International Organization for

Migration (IOM), an inter-agency organization, which keeps databases containing more information regarding OFWs.

• Improvement in the system of tracking OFWs, e.g., the case of Filipinos exiting as

tourists and returning as OFWs and consolidating information. Currently, the POEA is studying the possibility of getting additional information from OFWs.

• Conduct of more in-depth studies that would not only provide statistics on the number of

OFWs but also the reasons behind working in other countries, aside from the economic point of view.


On the issue of mismatch between education and manpower requirements:

• Review the current curriculum of S&T courses as graduates of these courses may not meet the requirements of hiring firms. Tie-up with the industry could be considered by academic institutions to ensure immediate employment of graduates.

• Enhancement of the S&T education system to ensure high quality and more globally

competitive graduates. For example, in the field of engineering, there is actually a growing need in the country, which however is not being met because engineering graduates do not meet the minimum qualifications.

On the issue of globalization and the forthcoming ASEAN community in 2015

• The issue of globalization should not be taken negatively, but as a challenge to become

more competitive. Mobility of S&T workers in the coming years is inevitable, particularly in view of the forthcoming ASEAN community, which the Philippines is part of.

• Migration is becoming a natural trend, which is not necessarily bad for the country as it

would mean economic returns for the country and advancement in skills for our S&T workers.

Other issues worth considering in the creation of legislations, policies and strategies:

• A big challenge is the provision of proper ecology and environment for our S&T

workers, and the improvement of R&D infrastructure in the country. The benchmark number of researchers, scientists and engineers (RSE) needed for a country to be industrialized is increasing and we may never catch up if we do not put in place proper measures.

• The country should invest in building R&D institutions in order to retain our RSEs and

MS and PhD graduates in S&T.

• Partnership between government and industry must be strengthened for the latter to recognize the existence of local human capital for research, thus there is no need to hire foreign consultants.

• Review of industrial policies in order to make our country more viable for foreign and

local investments relating to S&T. The Korean model may be used as an inspiration, which however would imply a paradigm shift from being a service-based economy to becoming industry-based.


• Review and, if necessary, amend existing laws on migration. New laws and policies that would consider the above concerns should be studied.


References

Asis, M. (2006, January). The Philippines’ Culture of Migration. Migration Information Source. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=364

Association of Filipino Migrant Families and Returnees. (1998, November). Philippine overseas

migration amidst the Asian Crisis. Retrieved from http://www.philsol.nl/A99a/Kakammpi-Nov98.htm

Brillo, B. (2008). Path Dependence, Increasing Returns, and Philippine Labor Migration Policy.

Retrieved from http://www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Brillo_2008_1.pdf

Buchan J. (2006). Filipino Nurses in the UK: A Case Study in Active International Recruitment. Retrieved from http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hhpr/publications/previous/06s/Buchan.pdf

Chalamwong, Y. (2004, May 15). The Migration of Highly Skilled Asian Workers in OECD

Member Countries. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/56/31857618.pdf

Department for International Development (DID). (2007, March). Moving out of poverty – making migration work better for poor people. Retrieved from http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/other_publications/Moving_Out_of_Poverty.p df

Dzvimbo, K. (2003, September). The International Migration of Skilled Human Capital from

Developing Countries. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/peter_dzvimbo.pdf

International Labor Office (ILO). (2009, September). Fact-Sheet on the Impact of the Economic

Crisis on Immigration Policies. Retrieved from http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/pdf/ILO_FactSheet_1_final.pdf

Lorenzo, F.M., Galvez-Tan, Icamina, K., & Javier L. Nurse migration from a source country

perspective: Philippine case study. (2007). Health Services Research. 42, 1406–1418. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00716.x

Lowel L., & Batalova J. (n.d.). International Migration of Highly Skill Workers: Methodological

and Public Policy Issues. Retrieved from http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51394

Commission on Filipinos Overseas. (2009) Stock Estimate of Overseas Filipinos (as of

December 2009). Retrieved from http://www.cfo.gov.ph/pdf/statistics/Stock%202009.pdf

http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=364

http://www.philsol.nl/A99a/Kakammpi-Nov98.htm

http://www.philsol.nl/A99a/Kakammpi-Nov98.htm

http://www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Brillo_2008_1.pdf

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hhpr/publications/previous/06s/Buchan.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/56/31857618.pdf

http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/other_publications/Moving_Out_of_Poverty.p

http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/other_publications/Moving_Out_of_Poverty.p

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/peter_dzvimbo.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/peter_dzvimbo.pdf

http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/pdf/ILO_FactSheet_1_final.pdf

http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/pdf/ILO_FactSheet_1_final.pdf

http://dx.crossref.org/10.1111%2Fj.1475-6773.2007.00716.x

http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51394

http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51394

http://www.cfo.gov.ph/pdf/statistics/Stock%202009.pdf


International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2010). World Migration Report 2010: The Future of Migration: Building Capacities for Change. Retrieved from http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/WMR_2010_ENGLISH.pdf

National Science Board (NSB). (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Retrieved

from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf

Orbeta, Jr., A. and Abrigo, M. (2009, October). Philippine International Labour Migration in the Past 30 Years: Trends and Prospects. http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0933.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007). International

Migration Outlook 2007, OECD, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2002, July). International Mobility of the Highly Skilled. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/20/1950028.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1995). The Measurement

of Scientific and Technology Activities: Manual on the Measurement of Human Resources devoted to S&T “Canberra Manual”. Retrieved from http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/BTYPD/kilavuzlar/Canberra.pdf

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) (June, 2008). International Mobility of

Scientists and Engineers. POSTNOTE, 309. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn309.pdf

Philippine Labor Market Information. Overseas Employment. Retrieved from http://www.phil-

lmi.dole.gov.ph/lmi/philLMI_3.htm

Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2010). OFW Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.poea.gov.ph/html/statistics.html

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (2009). Trends in the

International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2008, UN DESA, Population Division, New York.

http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/WMR_2010_ENGLISH.pdf

http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/WMR_2010_ENGLISH.pdf

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf

http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0933.pdf



http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/BTYPD/kilavuzlar/Canberra.pdf

http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/BTYPD/kilavuzlar/Canberra.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn309.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn309.pdf

http://www.poea.gov.ph/html/statistics.html

http://www.poea.gov.ph/html/statistics.html


ANNEXES


Annex A. List of Specific Occupations Belong to the Core Coverage Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST)

21 PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS

211 PHYSICISTS, CHEMISTS AND RELATED PROFESSIONALS 2111 Physicists and astronomers 2112 Meteorologists 2113 Chemists 2114 Geologists and geophysicists

212 MATHEMATICIANS, STATISTICIANS AND RELATED PROFESSIONALS 2121 Mathematicians and related professionals 2122 Statisticians

213 COMPUTING PROFESSIONALS 2131 Computer systems designers and analysts 2132 Computer programmers 2139 Computing professionals not elsewhere classified

214 ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND RELATED PROFESSIONALS 2141 Architects, town and traffic planners 2142 Civil engineers 2143 Electrical engineers 2144 Electronics and telecommunications engineers 2145 Mechanical engineers 2146 Chemical engineers 2147 Mining engineers, metallurgists and related professionals 2148 Cartographers and surveyors 2149 Architects, engineers and related professionals not elsewhere classified

22 LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 221 LIFE SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS

2211 Biologists, botanists, zoologists and related professionals 2212 Pharmacologists, pathologists and related professionals 2213 Agronomists and related professionals

222 HEALTH PROFESSIONALS (except nursing) 2221 Medical doctors 2222 Dentists 2223 Veterinarians 2224 Pharmacists 2229 Health professionals (except nursing) not elsewhere classified

223 NURSING AND MIDWIFERY PROFESSIONALS 2230 Nursing and midwifery professionals

Source: International Labor Organization ISCO-88

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco88/21.htm





































Annex B: Other Tables

International Migration of Science and Technology Manpower - OFWs 36

Annex B.1. Stock Estimates of Temporary Migrants by Region, 2000-2009

Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ave. LEVEL

Africa 21,174 45,497 46,690 51,323 55,749 59,006 69,313 67,578 41,989 51,736 51,006 Asia 922,283 817,144 818,146 944,129 1,005,609 891,088 789,110 747,069 581,330 552,524 806,843 Europe 446,632 411,248 455,112 459,042 506,997 523,442 534,748 555,542 299,468 309,914 450,215 Middle East 1,115,430 1,233,980 1,260,037 1,363,792 1,451,651 1,568,245 1,726,101 2,057,949 2,146,939 2,297,255 1,622,138 Oceania 34,634 50,009 51,448 55,814 57,357 57,692 74,813 84,927 44,325 68,515 57,953 Americas/Trust Territories 252,648 236,475 281,276 286,103 292,892 304,547 333,763 354,352 250,595 253,700 284,635 Seabased workers 198,324 255,269 255,269 216,031 229,002 247,707 274,497 266,553 261,614 330,424 253,469 Total 2,991,125 3,049,622 3,167,978 3,376,234 3,599,257 3,651,727 3,802,345 4,133,970 3,626,260 3,864,068 3,526,259

Region PERCENTAGE Africa 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 Asia 30.8 26.8 25.8 28.0 27.9 24.4 20.8 18.1 16.0 14.3 22.9 Europe 14.9 13.5 14.4 13.6 14.1 14.3 14.1 13.4 8.3 8.0 12.8 Middle East 37.3 40.5 39.8 40.4 40.3 42.9 45.4 49.8 59.2 59.5 46.0 Oceania 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.8 1.6 Americas/Trust Territories 8.4 7.8 8.9 8.5 8.1 8.3 8.8 8.6 6.9 6.6 8.1 Seabased workers 6.6 8.4 8.1 6.4 6.4 6.8 7.2 6.4 7.2 8.6 7.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

RATE OF CHANGE Region 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2000-2009

Africa 114.9 2.6 9.9 8.6 5.8 17.5 -2.5 -37.9 23.2 144.3 Asia -11.4 0.1 15.4 6.5 -11.4 -11.4 -5.3 -22.2 -5.0 -40.1 Europe -7.9 10.7 0.9 10.4 3.2 2.2 3.9 -46.1 3.5 -30.6 Middle East 10.6 2.1 8.2 6.4 8.0 10.1 19.2 4.3 7.0 106.0 Oceania 44.4 2.9 8.5 2.8 0.6 29.7 13.5 -47.8 54.6 97.8 Americas/Trust Territories -6.4 18.9 1.7 2.4 4.0 9.6 6.2 -29.3 1.2 0.4 Seabased workers 28.7 - -15.4 6.0 8.2 10.8 -2.9 -1.9 26.3 66.6 Total 2.0 3.9 6.6 6.6 1.5 4.1 8.7 -12.3 6.6 29.2


Annex B.2. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants (Re-Hires) by Region, 1998-2009

Region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVE. LEVEL

Africa 1445 2345 2076 2904 4217 5750 5460 6851 6891 10721 11842 13607 6176 Asia 187588 167583 156906 153520 148553 136502 133363 154788 148295 147070 160527 200147 157904 Europe 23378 27710 31195 32474 37299 33206 51254 47668 52359 33492 43226 41277 37878 Middle East 192910 192320 187859 190044 190718 184811 217418 229756 254912 287569 385462 422752 244711 Oceania 1515 1854 2014 1682 1688 1159 2462 2264 3158 7877 10698 11685 4005 Americas/Trust Territories 11785 11105 11125 11265 11071 11180 12648 18237 19544 18701 22576 24770 15334 Total 418621 402917 391175 391889 393546 372608 422605 459564 485159 505430 634331 714238 466007

Region PERCENTAGE Africa 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.3 Asia 44.8 41.6 40.1 39.2 37.7 36.6 31.6 33.7 30.6 29.1 25.3 28.0 33.9 Europe 5.6 6.9 8.0 8.3 9.5 8.9 12.1 10.4 10.8 6.6 6.8 5.8 8.1 Middle East 46.1 47.7 48.0 48.5 48.5 49.6 51.4 50.0 52.5 56.9 60.8 59.2 52.5 Oceania 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 0.9 Americas/Trust Territories 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

RATE OF CHANGE Region 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 1998-2009

Africa 62.3 -11.5 39.9 45.2 36.4 -5.0 25.5 0.6 55.6 10.5 14.9 841.7 Asia -10.7 -6.4 -2.2 -3.2 -8.1 -2.3 16.1 -4.2 -0.8 9.2 24.7 6.7 Europe 18.5 12.6 4.1 14.9 -11.0 54.4 -7.0 9.8 -36.0 29.1 -4.5 76.6 Middle East -0.3 -2.3 1.2 0.4 -3.1 17.6 5.7 10.9 12.8 34.0 9.7 119.1 Oceania 22.4 8.6 -16.5 0.4 -31.3 112.4 -8.0 39.5 149.4 35.8 9.2 671.3 Americas/Trust Territories -5.8 0.2 1.3 -1.7 1.0 13.1 44.2 7.2 -4.3 20.7 9.7 110.2 Total -3.8 -2.9 0.2 0.4 -5.3 13.4 8.7 5.6 4.2 25.5 12.6 70.6


Annex B.3. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants (New Hires Only) by Region, 1998-2009

Region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVE. LEVEL

Africa 4093 2591 2222 2039 2702 3000 3025 2252 2559 2405 4592 5360 3070 Asia 119673 131938 135161 131531 143524 118785 133246 104421 74645 71913 59071 60848 107063 Europe 3044 2997 8101 10545 8064 4775 3862 4478 6954 12121 8569 6132 6637 Middle East 86857 94756 95432 107489 116221 100753 134896 164663 207633 200309 246366 246290 150139 Oceania 1009 570 372 379 229 539 561 602 1968 2814 4332 1612 1249 Americas/Trust Territories 5044 4562 3920 6237 6536 4892 6221 4245 8913 15992 14801 11510 7739 TOTAL 219720 237414 245208 258220 277276 232744 281811 280661 302672 305554 337731 331752 275897

PERCENTAGE Region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVE.

Africa 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.6 1.1 Asia 54.5 55.6 55.1 50.9 51.8 51.0 47.3 37.2 24.7 23.5 17.5 18.3 38.8 Europe 1.4 1.3 3.3 4.1 2.9 2.1 1.4 1.6 2.3 4.0 2.5 1.8 2.4 Middle East 39.5 39.9 38.9 41.6 41.9 43.3 47.9 58.7 68.6 65.6 72.9 74.2 54.4 Oceania 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.5 Americas/Trust Territories 2.3 1.9 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.2 1.5 2.9 5.2 4.4 3.5 2.8 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

RATE OF CHANGE Region 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 1998-2009

Africa -36.7 -14.2 -8.2 32.5 11.0 0.8 -25.6 13.6 -6.0 90.9 16.7 31.0 Asia 10.2 2.4 -2.7 9.1 -17.2 12.2 -21.6 -28.5 -3.7 -17.9 3.0 -49.2 Europe -1.5 170.3 30.2 -23.5 -40.8 -19.1 16.0 55.3 74.3 -29.3 -28.4 101.4 Middle East 9.1 0.7 12.6 8.1 -13.3 33.9 22.1 26.1 -3.5 23.0 0.0 183.6 Oceania -43.5 -34.7 1.9 -39.6 135.4 4.1 7.3 226.9 43.0 53.9 -62.8 59.8 Americas/Trust Territories -9.6 -14.1 59.1 4.8 -25.2 27.2 -31.8 110.0 79.4 -7.4 -22.2 128.2 TOTAL 8.1 3.3 5.3 7.4 -16.1 21.1 -0.4 7.8 1.0 10.5 -1.8 51.0


Annex B.4. Annual Flow of Temporary Migrants by Major Occupational Group (New Hires Only), 1998-2009

Occupational Group 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Aver. LEVEL

Admin. and Mgr'l Workers 397 333 284 385 374 387 565 490 817 1,136 1,515 1,290 664

Agri'l, Animal Husbandry, Forestry, Fishermen, & Hunters

395

454

526

551

612

413

682

350

807

952

1,354

1,349

704 Clerical and Related Workers 3,072 2,554 2,367 3,356 4,012 3,965 5,324 5,538 7,912 13,660 18,096 15,403 7,105

Prod. Process workers, transport & laborers

76,288

79,559

57,807

56,744

69,513

61,352

63,719

74,802

103,584

121,704

132,281

117,609

84,580 Prof. Tech'l and Rel. Workers 55,823 62,367 78,688 97,453 99,687 78,956 94,147 60,317 41,258 42,431 49,141 47,886 67,346 Sales Workers 2,596 2,244 2,082 3,188 3,043 2,490 3,950 4,261 5,517 7,940 11,525 8,348 4,765 Service Workers 80,696 84,415 91,206 92,362 97,374 84,021 113,423 133,907 144,321 107,118 123,324 138,222 107,532 Others (N E C) 457 5,488 7,662 1,562 86 60 0 1 0 0 0 1 1,276 Not Stated 0 0 12,410 14,149 11,426 9,867 3 995 3,906 10,613 494 1,644 5,459 TOTAL 219,724 237,414 253,032 269,750 286,127 241,511 281,813 280,661 308,122 305,554 337,730 331,752 279,433

PERCENTAGE Admin. and Mgr'l Workers 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2

Agri'l, Animal Husbandry, Forestry, Fishermen, & Hunters

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3 Clerical and Related Workers 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.6 4.5 5.4 4.6 2.5

Prod. Process workers, transport & laborers

34.7

33.5

22.8

21.0

24.3

25.4

22.6

26.7

33.6

39.8

39.2

35.5

30.3 Prof. Tech'l and Rel. Workers 25.4 26.3 31.1 36.1 34.8 32.7 33.4 21.5 13.4 13.9 14.6 14.4 24.1 Sales Workers 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.6 3.4 2.5 1.7 Service Workers 36.7 35.6 36.0 34.2 34.0 34.8 40.2 47.7 46.8 35.1 36.5 41.7 38.5 Others (N E C) 0.2 2.3 3.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Not Stated 0.0 0.0 4.9 5.2 4.0 4.1 0.0 0.4 1.3 3.5 0.1 0.5 2.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Annex B.5. Annual Flow of Temporary OFWs (New Hires Only) by S&T classification, 1998-2009

S&T Classification 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVE. LEVEL

Non-S&T 209847 227868 241846 251994 269158 229269 268468 268476 286728 286783 313851 307250 263462 S&T 9877 9546 11186 17756 16969 12242 13345 12185 15945 18771 24330 24502 15555 Total 219724 237414 253032 269750 286127 241511 281813 280661 302673 305554 338181 331752 279016

PERCENTAGE OF S&T S&T 4.5 4.0 4.4 6.6 5.9 5.1 4.7 4.3 5.3 6.1 7.2 7.4 5.6

RATE OF CHANGE 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 1998-2009

Non-S&T 8.6 6.1 4.2 6.8 -14.8 17.1 0.0 6.8 0.0 9.4 -2.1 46.4 S&T -3.4 17.2 58.7 -4.4 -27.9 9.0 -8.7 30.9 17.7 29.6 0.7 148.1 Total 8.1 6.6 6.6 6.1 -15.6 16.7 -0.4 7.8 1.0 10.7 -1.9 51.0


Annex B.6. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Sex, 1998-2009

Sex 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVE. LEVEL

Male 4903 4200 4116 5052 5279 3535 4477 4893 7621 9176 11965 10348 4514 Female 4973 5346 7070 12704 11688 8706 8860 7289 8323 9591 12364 14153 8415 Not Stated 1 0 0 0 2 1 8 3 1 4 1 1 1 Total 9,877 9,546 11,186 17,756 16,969 12,242 13,345 12,185 15,945 18,771 24,330 24,502 12929

PERCENTAGE Male 49.6 44.0 36.8 28.5 31.1 28.9 33.5 40.2 47.8 48.9 49.2 42.2 34.9 Female 50.3 56.0 63.2 71.5 68.9 71.1 66.4 59.8 52.2 51.1 50.8 57.8 65.1 Not Stated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

RATE OF CHANGE 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 1998-2009

Male -14.3 -2.0 22.7 4.5 -33.0 26.6 9.3 55.8 20.4 30.4 -13.5 111.1 Female 7.5 32.2 79.7 -8.0 -25.5 1.8 -17.7 14.2 15.2 28.9 14.5 184.6 Not Stated -100.0 0 0 0 -50.0 700.0 -62.5 -66.7 300.0 -75.0 0.0 0.0 Total -3.4 17.2 58.7 -4.4 -27.9 9.0 -8.7 30.9 17.7 29.6 0.7 148.1


Annex B.7. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Occupation, 1998-2009

Occupation LEVEL 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ave.

Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals

33

25

20

33

36

13

108

79

69

85

106

154

63

Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs.

19

32

16

27

35

20

21

12

34

101

76

91

40

Computing Professionals 1,073 808 470 584 340 212 217 208 338 624 634 455 497

Engineers and Related Professionals

3,016

2,265

2,104

1,749

2,702

2,255

2,739

3,252

5,314

7,106

9,308

7,591

4,117 Life Science Professionals 43 32 23 14 37 62 112 109 132 51 95 43 63

Health Professionals (except nursing)

953

905

815

1,337

1,640

436

1,284

1,201

1,615

1,952

2,213

2,763

1,484

Nursing and Midwifery Professionals

4,740

5,479

7,738

14,012

12,179

9,244

8,864

7,324

8,443

8,852

11,898

13,405

9,348

TOTAL 9,877 9,546 11,186 17,756 16,969 12,242 13,345 12,185 15,945 18,771 24,330 24,502 15,612 PERCENTAGE

Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.6

0.4

Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs.

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.3 Computing Professionals 10.9 8.5 4.2 3.3 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.1 3.3 2.6 1.9 3.2

Engineers and Related Professionals

30.5

23.7

18.8

9.9

15.9 18.4

20.5

26.7

33.3

37.9

38.3

31.0

26.4

Life Science Professionals 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4

Health Professionals (except nursing)

9.6

9.5

7.3

7.5

9.7 3.6

9.6

9.9

10.1

10.4

9.1

11.3

9.5 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 48.0 57.4 69.2 78.9 71.8 75.5 66.4 60.1 53.0 47.2 48.9 54.7 59.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Annex B.8. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Major Occupation and Sex, 1998-2009 (Level )

Major Occupation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ave. LEVEL (MALE)

Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 31 25 16 29 32 13 96 76 60 71 98 132 57 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 15 22 12 22 21 15 15 10 25 59 35 55 26 Computing Professionals 738 622 363 428 262 173 165 141 233 412 428 306 356 Engineers and Related Professionals 2945 2202 2022 1718 2630 2199 2628 3125 5107 6733 8847 7321 3956 Life Science Professionals 43 32 23 12 32 16 88 107 127 48 52 35 51 Health Professionals (except nursing) 460 458 407 548 695 137 513 524 794 700 944 913 591 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 671 839 1273 2295 1607 982 972 910 1275 1153 1561 1586 1260 TOTAL 4903 4200 4116 5052 5279 3535 4477 4893 7621 9176 11965 10348 6297

LEVEL (FEMALE) Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 2 0 4 4 4 0 12 3 9 14 8 22 7 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 4 10 4 5 14 5 6 2 9 42 41 36 15 Computing Professionals 334 186 107 156 78 39 52 67 105 212 206 149 141 Engineers and Related Professionals 71 63 82 31 71 56 110 127 207 373 461 270 160 Life Science Professionals 0 0 0 2 5 46 24 2 5 3 43 8 12 Health Professionals (except nursing) 493 447 408 789 945 299 771 676 821 1251 1269 1850 835 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 4069 4640 6465 11717 10571 8261 7885 6412 7167 7696 10336 11818 8388 TOTAL 4973 5346 7070 12704 11688 8706 8860 7289 8323 9591 12364 14153 9558


Annex B.9. Annual Flow of S&T OFWs by Major Occupation and Sex, 1998-2009 (Percentage)

Major Occupation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ave. PERCENTAGE (MALE)

Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 2.1 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.9 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 Computing Professionals 15.1 14.8 8.8 8.5 5 4.9 3.7 2.9 3.1 4.5 3.6 3 5.7 Engineers and Related Professionals 60.1 52.4 49.1 34 49.8 62.2 58.7 63.9 67 73.4 73.9 70.7 62.8 Life Science Professionals 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.5 2 2.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 Health Professionals (except nursing) 9.4 10.9 9.9 10.8 13.2 3.9 11.5 10.7 10.4 7.6 7.9 8.8 9.4 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 13.7 20 30.9 45.4 30.4 27.8 21.7 18.6 16.7 12.6 13 15.3 20.0 TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.0

Major Occupation PERCENTAGE (FEMALE) Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 Computing Professionals 6.7 3.5 1.5 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.3 2.2 1.7 1.1 1.5 Engineers and Related Professionals 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.2 2.5 3.9 3.7 1.9 1.7 Life Science Professionals 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 Health Professionals (except nursing) 9.9 8.4 5.8 6.2 8.1 3.4 8.7 6.2 9.9 13 10.3 13.1 8.7 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 81.8 86.8 91.4 92.2 90.4 94.9 89 92 86.1 80.2 83.6 83.5 87.8 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.0


Annex B.10. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in Saudi Arabia by Specific Group of Occupations

Major Occupation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ave. LEVEL

Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 17 17 13 20 17 8 57 26 32 40 68 84 33 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 7 8 4 9 11 7 5 4 13 8 7 15 8 Computing Professionals 245 224 192 187 162 116 87 65 121 232 263 233 177 Engineers and Related Professionals 1983 1427 1020 1049 1570 1144 1110 1361 2308 3174 3748 3911 1984 Life Science Professionals 40 28 21 7 24 16 17 18 24 27 59 24 25 Health Professionals (except nursing) 735 633 500 928 1125 275 880 791 1045 1403 1491 2008 985 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 3615 3633 3943 5447 5904 5991 5931 4846 5938 6675 8332 9994 5854 TOTAL 6642 5970 5693 7647 8813 7557 8087 7111 9481 11559 13968 16269 9066

Major Occupation PERCENTAGE Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Computing Professionals 3.7 3.8 3.4 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.3 2 1.9 1.4 2.0 Engineers and Related Professionals 29.9 23.9 17.9 13.7 17.8 15.1 13.7 19.1 24.3 27.5 26.8 24 21.9 Life Science Professionals 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 Health Professionals (except nursing) 11.1 10.6 8.8 12.1 12.8 3.6 10.9 11.1 11 12.1 10.7 12.3 10.9 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 54.4 60.9 69.3 71.2 67 79.3 73.3 68.1 62.6 57.7 59.7 61.4 64.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Annex B.11. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United Arab Emirates by Specific Group of Occupations


Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 1 1 1 1 3 7 11 7 4 11 21 6 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 1 1 1 3 6 11 13 5 Computing Professionals 12 4 6 8 6 8 24 40 28 21 34 28 18 Engineers and Related Professionals 80 88 91 82 188 113 300 362 561 980 1969 773 466 Life Science Professionals 1 2 1 3 3 1 10 7 7 4 Health Professionals (except nursing) 30 57 143 140 54 22 55 84 152 148 200 202 107 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 270 367 295 251 406 231 220 670 793 614 435 572 427 TOTAL 394 519 536 485 659 377 607 1168 1545 1783 2667 1616 1030

Major Occupation PERCENTAGE Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 0.3 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.6 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 0.0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.5 Computing Professionals 3.0 0.8 1.1 1.6 0.9 2.1 4 3.4 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.8 Engineers and Related Professionals 20.3 17 17 16.9 28.5 30 49.4 31 36.3 55 73.8 47.8 45.2 Life Science Professionals 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.5 0 0 0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 Health Professionals (except nursing) 7.6 11 26.7 28.9 8.2 5.8 9.1 7.2 9.8 8.3 7.5 12.5 10.4 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 68.5 70.7 55 51.8 61.6 61.3 36.2 57.4 51.3 34.4 16.3 35.4 41.5 TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.0


Annex B.12. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United States of America by Specific Group of Occupations


Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 2 2 2 2 2 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 3 19 10 14 11 4 5 1 6 7 5 12 8 Computing Professionals 718 507 201 233 97 31 19 9 40 124 108 39 177 Engineers and Related Professionals 95 87 188 127 127 90 105 116 209 101 65 43 113 Life Science Professionals 1 1 Health Professionals (except nursing) 5 9 5 21 74 64 55 16 58 67 67 93 45 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 5 53 89 304 316 196 377 229 202 186 649 242 237 TOTAL 826 675 493 702 625 385 561 371 515 487 896 431 581

Major Occupation PERCENTAGE Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 0.4 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.0 0.9 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.6 2.8 1.4 Computing Professionals 86.9 75.1 40.8 33.2 15.5 8.1 3.4 2.4 7.8 25.5 12.1 9.0 30.5 Engineers and Related Professionals 11.5 12.9 38.1 18.1 20.3 23.4 18.7 31.3 40.6 20.7 7.3 10.0 19.4 Life Science Professionals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Health Professionals (except nursing) 0.6 1.3 1.0 3.0 11.8 16.6 9.8 4.3 11.3 13.8 7.5 21.6 7.7 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 0.6 7.9 18.1 43.3 50.6 50.9 67.2 61.7 39.2 38.2 72.4 56.1 40.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Annex. B.13. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in Singapore by Specific Group of Occupations


Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 2 16 1 11 8 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 1 2 1 2 2 13 2 4 3 Computing Professionals 12 16 20 61 15 4 3 12 7 9 28 9 16 Engineers and Related Professionals 153 126 325 31 45 36 84 71 194 184 150 115 126 Life Science Professionals 1 1 4 2 Health Professionals (except nursing) 21 64 51 76 163 1 60 49 57 32 62 61 58 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 224 154 292 413 334 326 166 129 73 276 652 745 315 TOTAL 410 361 690 584 559 369 313 277 333 515 898 945 521



Annex B.14. Annual Outflow of S&T OFWs in United Kingdom by Specific Group of Occupations


Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals 1 5 3 2 3 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Profs. 2 3 1 1 1 2 Computing Professionals 7 1 9 2 1 1 6 4 Engineers and Related Professionals 2 5 22 1 2 3 2 23 22 29 41 11 14 Life Science Professionals Health Professionals (except nursing) 7 2 55 46 33 21 10 29 20 25 Nursing and Midwifery Professionals 63 934 2615 5390 3089 1544 807 546 145 38 28 165 1280 TOTAL 72 946 2641 5400 3155 1551 858 602 190 79 105 197 1316


International Migration of Science and Technology (S&T) Manpower-Part II. OFWs 50

1998 1999

2000 2001

Annex B.15a. Number of S&T OFWs by Top Ten (10) Countries of Destination, 1998-2009

YEAR TOP 10 COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION No. of S&T OFWs Saudi Arabia 6,642 United States 826

Singapore 410

United Arab Emirates 394

Kuwait 202

Libya 192

Malaysia 146

Qatar 125

Oman 105 Bahrain 85

Saudi Arabia 5,970

United Kingdom 946

United States 675


Singapore 361

Oman 130

Kuwait 119

Libya 91

Malaysia 53 Taiwan 48

Saudi Arabia 5,693

United Kingdom 2,641

Singapore 690


United States 493

Kuwait 200

Ireland 132

Bahrain 60

Libya 55 Oman 52

Saudi Arabia 7,647


Ireland 1,579

United States 702

Singapore 584


Kuwait 273

Qatar 208

Libya 86

Saipan 57


2002 2003

2004 2005

Annex B.15b. Number of S&T OFWs by Top Ten (10) Countries of Destination, 1998-2009 (Cont.)

YEAR TOP 10 COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION No. of S&T OFWs Saudi Arabia 8,813 United Kingdom 3,155

Ireland 948


Libya 654

United States 625

Singapore 559

Qatar 352

Kuwait 183

Taiwan 165

Saudi Arabia 7,557


United States 385


Singapore 369

Qatar 356

Taiwan 246

Libya 236

Ireland 211 Japan 118

Saudi Arabia 8,087

Unite Kingdom 858

Qatar 679


United States 561

Kuwait 492

Singapore 313

Ireland 210

Japan 182 Jordan 120

Saudi Arabia 7,111

United States 371

United Arab Emirates 1,168

Qatar 792

United Kingdom 602

Kuwait 341

Ireland 315

Singapore 277

Trinidad and Tobago 150

Japan 122


2006 2007

2008 2009

Annex B.15c. Number of S&T OFWs by Top Ten (10) Countries of Destination, 1998-2009 (Cont.)

YEAR TOP 10 COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION No. of S&T OFWs Saudi Arabia 9,481 United Arab Emirates 1,545

Qatar 1,010

Kuwait 551

United States 515

Singapore 333

Libya 295

Ireland 252

Bahrain 228 Japan 201

Saudi Arabia 11,559


Qatar 1,416

Singapore 515

United States 487

Kuwait 479

Malaysia 301

Japan 238

Bahrain 236 Libya 149

Saudi Arabia 13,968


Qatar 1,984

Singapore 898

United States 896

Kuwait 554

Canada 550

Libya 360

Bahrain 277 Malaysia 256

Saudi Arabia 16,269


Qatar 1,433

Singapore 945

Libya 700

Kuwait 524

United States 431

Canada 370

Bahrain 253

Algeria 233


Annex C. List of Participants of Consultative Meeting held on 19 October 2011 at UP Asian Center

Name

Position

Agency/Organization

Luis Napoleon Casambre Undersecretary/ Executive Director

DOST-Information Communication Technology Office (ICTO)

Filma G. Brawner

Director

DOST-Science Education Institute (SEI)

Teresita Colambo SLSO I Office of Hon. Julio A. Ledesma IV, S&T Committee House of

Representative

Aura C. Matias

Dean/Chairperson

UP College of Engineering/ERDT

Cecilia Marave

Research Associate

Scalabrini Migration

Luisa Reyes Director II National Reintegration Center for OFWs (NRCO-DOLE)

Florencio Teves III Executive Assistant National Reintegration Center fo OFWs (NRCO-DOLE)

William O. Malitao CHED Director

Crisanto Frianeza Secretary General Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI)

Therese T. Estella Division Chief DOST-Planning and Evaluation Services (PES)

Geoffrey Ducanes

Assistant Professor

UP School of Economics

Mario Tuscan N. Naz

Chief

POEA-ICT Branch


ADVISERS

Dr. Filma G. Brawner Ms. Ruby R. Cristobal

WRITERS

Mr. Randolf S. Sasota Ms. Ruby D. Laña

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Mr. Dunhill Alcantara – POEA

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY...