Determinants and Dynamics of Micronesian Emigration

A Brief Discussion 

for the 

Micronesian Voices in Hawaii Conference 

April 2008 

Ben Graham

Outline 

1. Foreword 

2. Guiding Questions 

3. Migration 101: What We Know 

4. WWII to Independence 

5. Micronesian Emigration Today 

6. The Numbers 

7. Development Intentions 

8. Issues and Indicators 

9. Summary 

10. Looking Forward

Foreword 

Focus on: 

international emigration (movement of persons out of 

one country and into another) 

from the FSM and the RMI into the United States 

“Micronesia” and “Micronesians” refer to FSM/RMI and 

their citizens (Palau and other countries in region not 

specifically discussed)

Guiding Questions 

What are common drivers and characteristics of global 

migration 

What do we know specifically about Micronesian 

emigration over time 

What are key factors driving Micronesians to leave their 

islands today 

What are main social, economic, and other issues we must 

consider to better understand Micronesian emigration 

Looking forward, what are some important issues to 

consider

Migration 101: What We Know 

Humans have always migrated as a way to improve their 

condition 

Micronesians in particular have (over thousands of years 

and out of basic necessity) always been highly mobile 

people 

Today, global migration pressures continue to rise, mostly 

from the developing to the developed world 

Every year, millions of emigrants from developing 

countries gain access into developed countries via formal 

and legal processes 

Every year many enter illegally


US alone sees nearly two million entrants a year, half a 

million of which are illegal 

Earliest economic models for predicting emigration (at 

individual level) identified the following as major factors 

influencing decision: 

Earnings at home 

Potential earnings abroad 

Cost of migration


Over time, and with more research, more variables have 

been added. Common factors on sending country side 

include: 

Poverty and hardship 

Unemployment 

Low wages 

High fertility 

Poor health and education services 

Conflict, insecurity, violence 

Governance issues 

Human rights abuse, persecution, discrimination


On the receiving side, major factors include: 

Stock of previous emigrants from home country now 

residing in destination country (the “friends and 

relatives” effect) 

Demand for labor 

Potential for improved living standard 

Safety and security 

Political and religious freedom 

Family reunification 

Return to ethnic homeland 

Freedom from discrimination and persecution


In the middle, some factors can enable or deter the flow of 

migration from one country to another, namely: 

Cost 

Distance 

Immigration policies 

In short, international migration is influenced by a wide and 

complex set of factors on the sending side, the receiving 

side, and in between. Emigration theories and models 

developed over the years can only partially explain and 

predict the emigration phenomenon.


A simplified framework for studying migration 

Push Factors 

Poverty/hardship 

Unemployment 

Low wages 


Poor health, education 

basic services 

Conflict, war, , insecurity 

violence 


Human abuse, rights 

discrimination, 

persecution 

Natural disasters 

Others 

Barriers/Enablers 

Immigration 

policy 

Distance 

Cost 

Pull Factors 

Prospects of higher 

wages 


Potential improved for 

living standard 


Political/religious 

freedom 


(friends and relatives) 

Ethnic homeland 

Freedom from 

discrimination 

Others


A few other important characteristics of emigration: 

Contrary to popular belief, emigration from poor countries 

typically increases as economic development in these 

countries takes place 

There has been observed a hump-shaped curve reflecting the 

relationship between economic development and emigration 

Migration (in general) can have profound effects on 

development, human capital accumulation, poverty, and 

many other issues in both sending and receiving countries 

Internal migration (mostly in terms of urban migration) and 

migration between developing countries are also growing

WWII to Independence 

1950s and 1960s: Movement Strategically Denied 

Post WWII years characterized by relatively limited 

movement of people into and out of Micronesia 

US administration of TTPI emphasized control and 

security 

US policy of strategic denial in force 

However late 1960s saw entry of regularly scheduled 

airline services (Continental Micronesia) and Peace 

Corps

WWII to Independence 

1970s and 1980s: Emigration for Education Begins 

Schools built in the 1950s and 1960s began graduating 

students in 1960s and 1970s 

Emigration for education began in the 1970s 

Most emigration out of Micronesia throughout the 

1970s and 1980s was for education

Micronesian Emigration Today 

The 1986 commencement of the Compacts the defining 

moment in modern Micronesian emigration 

Whereas education the initial driver, after 1986 we see a 

broadening of factors 

Micronesians increasingly citing economic opportunity 

and employment as the key drivers 

While 15.6 percent of post-Compact migrants in Hawaii in 

1997 cited employment as their primary reason in 2003 this 

increased to 18.2 percent 

Other drivers gaining importance: medical and subsistence 

Arkansas Marshallese cite employment as #1

Micronesian Emigration Today 

Reason for Migrating (post-Compact migrants), Hawaii: 1997 and 2003 

Source: Censuses of Micronesians in Hawaii.

The Numbers 

Emigration has grown rapidly especially since beginning of 

the Compacts 

But not unpredicted: 

1963 Solomon report “in the long run ... certain inflexible 

economic limitations of the area and the increasing 

population pressure must eventually compel substantial 

emigration of Micronesians.” 

1986 Fran Hezel “There is every reason to believe that the 

trickle of emigrants will increase considerably in the near 

future… Unless the island nations of Micronesia are somehow 

able to turn around their economies and create hundreds of 

new jobs without the assistance of higher levels of US aid, 

there is a good chance that more young people will elect to 

leave home and pursue jobs, wherever they are to be found.”

The Numbers 

Neither FSM nor RMI have systems to capture emigration 

data 

Recently discovered US Department of Transportation 

database captures all movements of airline passengers 

Analyze air passenger movements into and out of 

Micronesian and US airports (embarkations and 

disembarkations) from the early 1990s to today 

The following summarizes net embarkations (departures 

over arrivals) of air passengers over the 1991 to 2006 period 

The data show very clearly: over 16 year period thousands 

more have departed than have arrived

The Numbers 

FSM saw over 23,000 net embarkations while RMI saw over 

15,000 

Chuuk 12,423 

Pohnpei 8,490 

Kosrae 1,187 

Yap 991 

While absolute numbers of FSM embarkations higher, RMI 

higher in percentage terms

Net Embarkations (by air) FSM and RMI: 1991 to 2006 

Year FSM Kosrae Pohnpei Chuuk Yap RMI Majuro Kwajalein 

2006 2,229 88 680 1,553 -92 1,070 884 186 

2005 1,511 218 496 815 -18 1,023 1,040 -17 

2004 2,712 131 919 1,467 195 553 542 11 

2003 2,699 136 485 1,890 188 781 419 362 

2002 1,068 158 632 203 75 913 894 19 

2001 1,277 83 566 652 -24 2,133 1,517 616 

2000 1,114 171 1,061 95 -213 1,916 1,289 627 

1999 -255 -13 113 -400 45 457 660 -203 

1998 2,032 53 911 663 405 755 833 -78 

1997 1,155 -65 422 689 109 1,415 1,179 236 

1996 1,558 77 374 1,062 45 640 586 54 

1995 1,890 95 818 983 -6 1,753 509 1,244 

1994 707 -109 -40 858 -2 546 573 -27 

1993 728 171 182 444 -69 930 254 676 

1992 1,093 -61 213 1,070 -129 706 330 376 

1991 1,573 54 658 379 482 -357 237 -594 

1991-2006 total 23,091 1,187 8,490 12,423 991 15,234 11,746 3,488 

1991-2006 avg 1,443 74 531 776 62 952 734 218 

Source: US Department of Transportation TranStats Database 

Note: data only for passenger movements between FSM/RMI and US, FY for FSM and CY for RMI

Net Embarkations (by air) FSM and RMI: 1991 to 2006 

FSM 

RMI 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 



The Numbers 

For FSM, 1998, 2003, 2004, and 2006 banner years, 

with more than 2,000 total net embarkations 

For RMI, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2005 and 2006 over 

1,000 net embarkations 

Next graph shows three year trailing averages for net 

embarkations for the 1993 to 2006 period 

For FSM, since year 2000, average has been on an 

upswing (except for the slight dip in 2006) 

For RMI, average was high in the early 2000s but has 

slowly leveled off

Net Embarkations (by air) FSM and RMI, 3-Year Trailing Average: 1993 to 2006 

FSM 

RMI 

2,044 

2,288 

2,151 

1,774 

1,853 

1,131 1,195 1,208 

1,057 

915 

716 

1,259 

1,081 

868 857 882 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 



Development Intentions 

Generally speaking, development goals, intentions, and 

aspirations fairly clear: 

Adopted similar strategies for development, 

prioritization on health and education sectors 

Amended Compacts of Free Association prioritize 

resource allocations to health, education and 

supporting infrastructure 

Pledged to promote sustainable growth by supporting 

and facilitating private sector development, efficient 

and effective basic public services, protecting and 

managing natural resources

Development Intentions 

Both countries have held national economic and social 

summits 

Both countries have formulated economic development 

plans 

Both have signed onto multiple international treaties that 

commit them to achieving specific development goals and 

targets (MDGs) 

But neither the FSM nor the RMI have very clear 

definitions of poverty and hardship and neither has 

articulated poverty alleviation or social protection strategy

Issues and Indicators 

Median Age: 1999-2000 

Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community PRISM website, census reports


Population Pyramids for RMI, FSM: 1999-2000 

Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community PRISM website, census reports


Average Household Size: 1999-2000 

Source: census reports


Both countries have rapidly growing working age 

populations (2006): 

FSM 60,500 and RMI 28,900 

In the labor force: 

FSM 35,400 and RMI 14,800 (historically low LFPRs) 

Formally employed: 

FSM 16,463 and RMI 9,810 (registered in the Social 

Security databases) 

In some areas, formal employment has contracted over 

time


Estimates for those in labor force but not registered 

as being formally employed: 

FSM 18,978 and RMI 4,950 persons 

These nearly 24,000 people are either: 

Formally employed but not registered 

Informally or self-employed 

Not employed


Total Population = 100 

Working Age Population = 56 

Labor Force = 31 

16


Estimated Labor Force and Formally Employed: 1997 to 2006 

Source: FSM and RMI Economic Reviews FY2006, author estimates


National Unemployment Rate: 1999-2000 

Source: census reports


Average Annual Real Wages, Formally Employed: 1995 to 2006 

Source: FSM Economic Review FY2006


As with real wages, over the long run real GDP per 

capita in FSM and RMI has fallen 

FSM real GDP per capita (1998 $) fell from $2,107 in 

1995 to $1,888 in FY2006 

In RMI the decline (in 2000 $) from $2,693 to $2,454


Percent of Population Living Below Basic Needs Poverty Line: 1999-2000 

Source: ADB Hardship in the Pacific series


Participatory Poverty Assessments conducted in 2002 (for 

RMI) and 2004 (for FSM) by ADB 

Conclusion: that while extreme poverty does not currently 

exist, many feel that hardship being experienced by many 

families in both urban and rural areas 

Some families find it increasingly difficult to earn cash 

needed to meet living expenses 

In 2006 RMI Community Survey, 27 percent of households 

indicated overall quality of life has gotten worse or much 

worse in recent years


Public Expenditure on Education (% of GDP): 2003 

Source: IMF


Public Expenditure on Health (% of GDP): 2003 

Source: IMF


Annual Average Per Capita Spending for Education/Health ($): 2005 

Source: World Bank


World Health Organization Global Rankings on Overall Performance of Health Systems (191 countries): 2000 

Source: WHO


Life Expectancy, Male and Female (from latest censuses) 

Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, PRISM website


Retention Rates, Grades 1,8,9,12 

Source: World Bank and Hezel, F. (2002). Taking Responsibility for our Schools. PREL.


Political -2005 Stability 

HIGH 

(Chosen comparator also shown for selected countries) 

Normalized Political Instability and Violence Index 

LOW 

213 Countries 

FIJI 

TONGA 

AMERICAN SAMOA 

MICRONESIA 

SAMOA 

MARSHALL ISLANDS 

KIRIBATI 

Note: Blue dots represent estimates for 

the 2005 governance indicators. The thin 

vertical lines represent standard errors 

around these estimates for each country 

in -wide world sample. Black dot 

represents the chosen year comparator 

(if any). To add or delete countries from 

the chart, click on the "Country Selection" 

tab . below 

Source: -2005 " by "Governance Daniel Kaufmann, Matters Aart V: Governance Kraay and Massimo Indicators Mastruzzi. for 1996 

Disclaimer: 

The by a large governance number indicators of presented here reflect the statistical compilation of responses on the quality of governance given 

enterprise, nst itutes, - think citizen tanks, and nonexpert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries, as reported by a number of survey i 

governmental of the World Bank, organizations, its Executive and international organizations. The aggregate indicators in no way reflect the of ficial position 

Directors, on these indicators the are countries subject they to represent. As discussed in detail in the accompanying papers, countries' relative positions 

margins of error that are clearly indicated. Consequently, precise country rankings should not be inferred from this data.


Control -2005 of Corruption 

HIGH 

(Chosen comparator also shown for selected countries) 

Normalized Control of Corruption Index 

TONGA 

LOW 

204 Countries 

FIJI 

Source: -2005 " by "Governance Daniel Kaufmann, Matters Aart V: Governance Kraay and Massimo Indicators Mastruzzi. f or 1996 

Disclaimer: 

The by a large governance number indicators of presented here reflect the statistical compilation of responses on the quality of governance given 

enterprise, nst itutes, - think citizen tanks, and nonexpert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries, as reported by a number of survey i 

governmental of the World Bank, organizations, its Executive and international organizations. The aggregate indicators in no way reflect the official position 

Directors, on these indicators the are countries subject they to represent. As discussed in detail in the accompanying papers, countries' relative positions 

margins of error that are clearly indicated. Consequently, precise country rankings should not be inferred from this data. 

MARSHALL ISLANDS 

MICRONESIA 

SAMOA 

KIRIBATI 

AMERICAN SAMOA 

Note: Blue dots represent estimates for 

the 2005 governance indicators. The thin 

vertical lines represent standard errors 

around these estimates for each country 

in -wide world sample. Black dot 

represents the chosen year comparator 

(if any). To add or delete countries from 

the chart, click on the "Country Selection" 

tab . below


Is RMI Government (2006) Responsive to Community Needs 

Source: 2006 RMI Community Survey

Summary 

Young population structures = continued high growth in 

working ages, labor force 

Micronesia will have excess labor supply for long time, but 

employment opportunities at home growing slowly 

Unemployment and inactivity high, especially among 

youth 

Real incomes have fallen since 1990s, many households 

below basic needs lines 

FSM and RMI spend far more on health/education but 

much room for improvement 

In governance, both countries can make improvements

Looking Forward 

No reason to believe that magnitude of emigration will 

dramatically change any time soon - many push, pull, 

enabling factors at play 

Push Factors 

Poverty/hardship 

Unemployment 

Low wages 


Poor health, education 

basic services 

Conflict, war, , insecurity 

violence 


Human abuse, rights 

discrimination, 

persecution 

Natural disasters 

Others 

Barriers/Enablers 

Immigration 

policy 

Distance 

Cost 

Pull Factors 

Prospects of higher 

wages 


Potential improved for 

living standard 


Political/religious 

freedom 


(friends and relatives) 

Ethnic homeland 

Freedom from 

discrimination 

Others


PUSH: hardship, unemployment, low wages, limited 

education and health services, general lack of economic 

security, boredom – all will continue to push Micronesians 

PULL: plentiful jobs, better wages, education 

opportunities, health services, growing pool of friends and 

relatives, prospects of improved living standards, economic 

security, citizenship, more US and other employers directly 

hiring from Micronesia () – all will continue to pull 

Micronesians 

ENABLERS: open door access under Compact, friends and 

relatives covering emigration costs, short distances to 

some destinations (Guam, Honolulu)


Some key questions and issues to also consider: 

Is the open access under the Compact permanent 

What about companies now directly recruiting 

Micronesians from home (covering costs, etc.) 

What about climate change and sea level rise 

What about seasonal work schemes (e.g., Guam, 

Taiwan, etc.) 

What about growth in tourism 

What about remittances (financial, governance, etc.) 

Other issues


Both countries have promised to improve human 

development, economies, and quality of life 

Some indicators confirm this is happening but most 

indicators suggest major improvements can be made, 

especially in health and education performance and 

outcomes 

But improving health and education alone will not be 

enough 

Economic policy commitments should translate into real 

economic and employment growth


Most pubic money spent on education and health, so 

should highest priority be to ensure all citizens are able to 

complete high quality education Shouldn’t quality of 

health care (preventative, diagnosis) dramatically improve 

Improving human development, social and economic 

outcomes is the most effective way to ensure all 

Micronesians (wherever they chose to live) are able to not 

only survive but truly succeed in their environments


FSM 3 rd Economic Summit (2004): 

To achieve moderate growth in incomes and to avoid rising out-migration 

rates… need to maintain fiscal discipline… support essential services… 

implement a moderate program of reforms to improve the environment for 

domestic and foreign investment… reform program would be required… 

All of these principles (fiscal discipline, reform, etc.) should 

be pursued, however while development and rising 

incomes will improve the lives of Micronesians, this may 

not necessarily stem the heavy tide of emigration we have 

now witnessed for over two decades

Hawaii specific issues… 

Comparable salary in 

Fayetteville AR: 

$8,108.66 

Salary in Honolulu HI: $14,500 ($7.25/hour @ 2,000 annual hours) 

Comparable salary in Comparable salary in 

Sacramento CA: 

Eugene OR: 

$10,951.24 

$9,668.15 

Comparable salary in 

Phoenix AZ: 

$9,085.91 

If you move from Honolulu HI to 

Fayetteville AR... 

Groceries will 

cost: 40.93% less 

Housing will 



Sacramento CA... 



Housing will 



Eugene OR... 



Housing will 



Phoenix AZ... 



Housing will 


Utilities will cost: 11.36% less Utilities will cost: 17.84% less Utilities will cost: 28.07% less Utilities will cost: 20.45% less 

Transportation 

will cost: 20.31% less 

Healthcare will 





cost: 1.74% more 




cost: 2.53% more 





Source: CNN Money website (www.cnnmoney.com)

Determinants and Dynamics of Micronesian Emigration

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?