![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.elon.edu\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/313\/files\/2017\/06\/Screenshot-2017-06-02-12.07.49.png\")
<\/a>This is a followup post to\u00a0one I wrote\u00a0<\/a>several weeks ago about what ‘localization’ means in the Filipino context.<\/p>\nSobering to say, recent events in Manila<\/a> and in\u00a0Marawi<\/a> are now testing the resiliency of Filipino\u00a0culture and the mettle of the civil sector, including humanitarians. An even closer look at the response seems ever more urgent. \u00a0In the meantime, here are some further thoughts on ‘localization.’<\/p>\n The UK based Start Network<\/a> defines\u00a0the term ‘localization’\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0<\/span>“a series of measures which <\/span>different constituent parts of the international humanitarian system should adopt in order to re-balance the system <\/span>more in favour of national actors, so that a re-calibrated system works to the relevant strengths of its constituent parts <\/span>and enhances partnership approaches to humanitarian action.” \u00a0Their mission, in part, is to foster, “…a system that reduces the power of centralised institutions and bureaucrats and gives more control to communities and individuals on the front line of every crisis.” A ‘Grand Bargain<\/a>‘ indeed.<\/span><\/p>\n I offer that perhaps the term should be not ‘localization’ but rather ‘re-localization’ or even ‘de-paternalizing’. \u00a0My point regarding ‘re-localization’ is that historically the Filipino culture -like all viable cultures- have many systems in place to insure appropriate response in times of crisis: \u00a0people pull together during disasters. \u00a0I discuss the sociological groundings for this observation here<\/a>. \u00a0As for ‘de-paternalization’ I point to 400+ years of\u00a0colonial and neocolonial influences that remain an integral part of the Filipino historical, sociocultural, political and economic landscape.<\/span><\/p>\n Getting into the weeds with regards to the Grand Bargain<\/strong> In the end their report makes sound recommendations<\/a>. \u00a0In broad strokes I do think that ‘localization’ in the Philippines is (1) going in a positive and progressive direction and (2) can and should continue to proceed with all deliberate urgency. \u00a0Our survey data support these\u00a0views (see the whole series of posts on this blog reviewing our data from Filipino aid and development workers).<\/p>\n But is there a negative side to ‘localization’?<\/p>\n A down side to ‘localization’?<\/strong> Brains and talent may leave the Philippines but all is not lost, far from it.<\/p>\n Looking at data from the World Bank<\/a>, we can see that globally remittances have almost doubled in the last decade going from US$330 billion in 2006 to US$601 billion in 2015.<\/p>\n “Of that amount, developing countries are estimated to receive about $441 billion, nearly three times the amount of official development assistance<\/em>. The true size of remittances, including unrecorded flows through formal and informal channels, is believed to be significantly larger.” [emphasis added]<\/p>\n The Philippines is the world’s third top remittance receiving nation with nearly US$30 billion in 2015, behind only India and China. \u00a0This sum represents 10% of their total national GDP.<\/p>\n Though the Philippine Development Plan<\/a> hopes to curb brain drain the fact remains that\u00a0impact of Filipinos moving abroad to work is\u00a0significant. \u00a0No one knows with certainty the amount of money flowing into the Philippines every year from remittances, but if indeed this figure dwarfs that of all development\u00a0funds coming in (see above), one has to wonder if, in the end, brain\u00a0drain may be a good thing after all.<\/p>\n The tragedy of the commons: \u00a0everyone is making rational decisions<\/strong> Final thought<\/strong>
\nLocalization means building the capacity of local and national humanitarian aid and development![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.elon.edu\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/313\/files\/2017\/06\/images.jpg\")
<\/a> entities, but these efforts are sometimes hampered by the\u00a0fairly common phenomena of ‘cherry-picking’ the best and brightest local staff to work for INGO’s. \u00a0The Start Network looked at this phenomena\u00a0and used the Philippines<\/a> as a case study, arguing that recruitment and hiring practices of some INGO’s were undermining local capacity.<\/p>\n
\nIn this hyper-globalizing world with fluid or non-existent economic boundaries, ‘brain drain’ is a significant\u00a0issue. \u00a0This is true for\u00a0all manner of sociopolitical entities, all the way from small villages\u00a0to nations. \u00a0Any list of entities impacted by brain drain certainly includes local aid and development CBO’s and NGO’s in the Philippines and elsewhere. \u00a0Brain drain in the Philippines<\/a>\u00a0is significant, with 10% of the population living abroad (the highest percentage living in the US). \u00a0In looking at this issue much emphasis has been placed on the medical field<\/a>\u00a0for good reason.<\/p>\n
\nBut whether or not brain drain is good or bad\u00a0may be a moot question. \u00a0Both people and organizations tend to make decisions based on their own self interest, and, to put a fine point on this, if I am a young, mobile, highly trained and skilled aid or development worker the most rational thing![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.elon.edu\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/313\/files\/2017\/06\/images.png\")
<\/a> I can do is to seek out -or respond positively to- job offers from INGO’s, especially if they pay more. \u00a0For their part the INGO’s are responding to the very positive and progressive\u00a0goal of having a diverse team employed that, well, are not all from the global north. \u00a0Making policy and practice suggestions <\/a>like the Start Network has done is useful and necessary, but may not hit at the fundamental\u00a0reality that\u00a0the humanitarian\u00a0sector is part of the larger global employment\/economic system.<\/p>\n
\nAllowing for the open labor market to control the flow of workers -labor commodities- by an ‘invisible hand’ implicitly supports a neoliberal agenda. \u00a0The brain draining, capacity sucking, cherrypicking of skilled ‘local aid workers’ will continue, hampering the ‘localization’ of the aid and development sector in the Philippines and the rest of the global south. \u00a0This is so because most of us\u00a0fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room that is the global economy which inexorably responds to the\u00a0largely unquestioned system of free market capitalism.<\/p>\n