1

LABOR MOVEMENTS OF OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORKERS FROM

PHILIPPINES TO KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA (KSA)

HAIFA DENNISE D. BAES

A thesis manuscript submitted to the faculty of the Department of Economics, College of

Economics, Management and Development Studies, Cavite State University, Indang,
Cavite in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Economics, major in Business Economics with Contribution No. ______________.
Prepared under the supervision of Dr. Nelia C. Cresino.

INTRODUCTION
Saudi Arabia is officially known as Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Saudi
Arabias free market economy has undergone remarkable changes in a relatively short
period of time. It has evolved from a basic agricultural society into a regional and global
economic power with a modern infrastructure. Petroleum is an integral part of the Saudi
economy, Saudi Arabia is the worlds largest producer and exporter of oil
(www.saudiembassy.net).
For centuries, the migration of laborers within and between countries has become
more prominent as they seek better opportunities for themselves. Numerous studies have
dealt on the reasons why individuals move from a specific place to another based on
home country macroeconomic variables but seldom on host country (Ramos, 2014).

In 2012, the total number of deployed OFWs has risen to 1,802,031 in which
79.64 percent is on the land-based employment while the remaining 20.36 percent is on
sea-based employment. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) ranked first in the
destination of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) (POEA, 2012).
The economics of labor migration states that workers from the home country have
the expectation of a higher income abroad which is considered as a main basis of
decisions to emigrate. Migration for employment is an important global issue, which
affects most countries in the world. Many people cannot find employment to support
themselves and their families in their own countries, while some other countries have a
shortage of workers to fill positions in various sectors of their economies (ILO, 2006).
Globally, more people seek better lives outside their home countries. Many
Filipinos leave the country each year to work abroad. Globalization, demographic shifts,
conflicts, income inequalities, and climate change encourage more workers and their
families to cross borders in search of employment and security. Migrant workers
contribute to growth and development in their countries of destination, while countries of
origin greatly benefit from their remittances and the skills acquired during their migration
experience. Remittances to the Philippines from around the world continue to grow. The
study focused on the labor movements of OFWs from the Philippines to KSA from 1995
to 2014.

Statement of the Problem

Generally, the study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the behavior of deployment of OFWs in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(KSA)?
2. What is the trend in the macroeconomic variables that affect the deployment
of OFWs to KSA, namely: Gross Domestic Product per capita, misery index,
and remittances?
3. How do the macroeconomic variables affect the number of OFWs in KSA?
Objectives of the Study
The study aimed to:
1. describe the behavior of deployment of OFWs to KSA;
2. determine the trend in macroeconomic variables that affect the deployment of
OFWs to KSA such as GDP per capita, misery index, and remittances, and
3. ascertain the significant relationship of the deployment of OFWs in KSA and
the macroeconomic variables such as GDP per capita, misery index, and
remittances
Significance of the Study
The results of the study can be used as guide of policy makers to understand a
large scale of migration. The study can provide useful parameters for making labor
policies and enabling economy for productive investments and facilitate international
trade in terms of labor. Lastly, it will also benefit other researchers who want to study
about international labor migration.
Time and Place of the Study

The study was conducted from October 2015 to February 2016. This study
covered the labor deployment of OFWs from the Philippines to KSA.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The study was focused on the deployment of workers from the Philippines to
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) from 1995 to 2014.
The study was limited to 20-year period in order to have a more accurate outcome
in determining the macroeconomic variables that affect the labor movements of OFWs.
It was also limited to one country which is KSA to observe behavior of the OFWs
thoroughly specifically the land-based workers.
Definitions of Terms
Deployment. It is the distribution of forces or laborers in preparation for work in
other countries. In this study, it means the number of OFWs sent to Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA).
Gross

Domestic

Product

(GDP).

This

is

the total market

value of

all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to
total consumer, investment, and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus
the value of imports.
GDP per capita. It is a measure of average income per person in a country.
International migration. It is the movement of people from one country to
another. In the study, it means moving from Philippines to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(KSA).

Labor migration. It is the movement from home country to foreign country for
purposes of employment.
Labor movement. It is an organized effort of workers to improve their economic
and social status by united action measured through time series.
Misery index. It is an economic indicator computed by adding the unemployment
rate to the inflation rate. (Arthur Okun, 1960)
Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). These are Filipinos working abroad who
are expected to return permanently either upon the expiration of a work contract or upon
retirement.
Push and Pull Theory. Positive and negative factors at the origin and destination
push and pull migrants towards migration (Lee, 1966). Push factors attribute to the
negative characteristics of the origin and the pull factors identify the positive
characteristics at the destination that attract Filipinos to work abroad (Datta, 2002).
Remittances. This is the process of sending money as an obligation to the family
left in the Philippines.
Conceptual Framework
There are three levels in the theories of migration: macro-level, micro-level and
meso-level theories. The macro-level theories explained the trends in the movement of
workers while the micro-level theories identified the decisions, expectations and desires
of each individual on migration. Meanwhile, the meso-level, located in the middle of
macro and micro level, indicates the causes and continuation of migration (HagenZanker, 2008).

One of the micro-level theories of migration is the push-pull theory. This study
will imply the use of push-pull theory. Lee (1966) was the first to formulate migration in
a push-pull framework on an individual level, looking at both the supply and demand side
of migration. Positive and negative factors at the origin and destination push and pull
migrants towards migration, delayed by intervening factors like migration laws and
personal factors. According to Datta (2002), push factors attribute to the negative
characteristics operating at the center of origin, whereas pull factors identify the positive
characteristics at the center of destination.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship of the deployment of OFWs from the
Philippines to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and macroeconomic variables such as
GDP per capita, misery index, and remittances.
As indicated, the variables found in the home country were recognized to be the
push factors, while those in the host country were considered as the pull factors.
Generally, those variables found in the home country such as the GDP per capita and
misery index had the opposite effects for the host country. On the other hand, remittances
per capita sent by the deployed land-based OFWs in KSA served as a pull factor for
outward labor migration of the workers.
The slow and unstable GDP per capita growth and high unemployment rate,
combined with a rising population, and willingness to work in any location and far from
their families, have conditioned many Filipino workers to view overseas work as a
practical and often necessary option.

Misery index on the other hand, is the combined unemployment rate and inflation
rate that drives the individuals to choose to work abroad. The idea behind this variable is
that higher unemployment rates and worsened inflation rates will result to specific
economic costs for a country. In the home country, higher value of this variable leads to
higher urge for an individual to leave the country. In developing countries like the
Philippines, the availability of employment opportunities is decisive. Also, due to high
unemployment rates and nonstop increase in the prices of commodities, competition in
the labor market begins.
The host country will continuously attract more migrants due to availability of
opportunities to the workers. The main reason why an individual chooses to work abroad
is because of the monetary return they can obtain from it. An increase in remittances per
capita will encourage the individual to work abroad.

Independent Variables

GDP per capita

Misery Index
Remittances

Dependent Variable

DEPLOYMENT OF OFWs
to KSA

Figure 1. The relationship between the deployment of OFWs and the selected
macroeconomic variables such as GDP per capita, misery index,
and remittances.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This section constitutes different research results about the macroeconomic
indicators on the international migration flows of laborers.
Philippine International Labor Migration
The Philippines' expedition into organized international labor migration was
supposed to be temporary, lasting only until the country recovered from its economic
problems. However, the continuing demand for workers in the Gulf countries and the
opening of new labor markets in other regions, especially in East and Southeast Asia,
fueled further migration. Additionally, the absence of sustained economic development,
political instability, a growing population, double-digit unemployment levels, and low
wages continue to force people to look for job opportunities abroad (Asis, 2006).
It was in 1970 that the Philippine government emerged participation in the global
labor market. This action was primarily due to slow performance of the economy
resulting from high unemployment rates and poverty incidences among the majority of
the Filipinos. The accessibility of job opportunities in other countries strongly attracts
Filipinos to work abroad (Tan, 2006 as cited in Ramos, 2014).
International Organization for Migration (2013) published a Country Migration
Report for the Philippines which states that labor migration from the Philippines has
constantly grown in the past 40 years and has more than doubled in the past ten years
with 2012 believed to be the peak year in the deployment figure of 1,850,463 in 2011.
The deployment of OFWs at the beginning of the overseas labor program was
almost exclusively directed toward the Middle East, in particular the oil-rich Gulf
countries. It was largely facilitated by construction contractors and labor sub-contractors

10

which deployed workers to the construction and oil sectors. The Gulf countries still
accounted for 67 percent of the outflow of OFWs. As of 2012, Saudi Arabia leads the top
ten destinations of OFWs, which includes five Gulf countries, four Asian countries, and
with Italy, being the only non-Asian country (Country Migration Report, 2013).
Acupan and Agbola (2007) cited in their study that the Philippines stands
prominent among remittance-receiving and labor-exporting countries. With US$11.6
billion in official remittances in 2004 as mentioned in Global Economic Prospects, World
Bank (2006), the Philippines was the developing worlds third largest remittancerecipient country in absolute value terms. Commission on Filipinos Overseas (2006) cited
that around nine million Filipinos live and work in more than 130 countries around the
world in terms of labor-export. In addition, World Bank (2006) mentioned that
international migration, mainly from developing countries into developed countries has
generated significant improvement in the lives of migrants and their families. These
international migrants receive higher wages and their families who are left in their
country of origin benefit through the remittances. Countries of destination on the other
hand benefit from the increased supply of skilled labor while countries of origin saw the
easing of their domestic labor market pressures.
Workers were classified into land-based or sea-based (Ramos, 2014). As cited in
POEA (2000), the growth of international labor migration brings more opportunities for
land-based employment though the demand for sea-based workers were also high. The
underlying reason for preference of land-based over the sea-based opportunities was the
increase on domestic offers due to the oil boom in the Gulf countries.

11

Macroeconomic Variables That Affect Labor Movements

In the study of Ahmad et al. (2008), Pakistan was used as the home country and
the determinants of international migration include remittances, inflation, real wage rate,
and unemployment rate. The Push-Pull theory traced out the economic factors of
migration in the sending country as well as in the receiving country. The factors of
migration included are not limited to demographic pressure, high unemployment and low
living standards in the home country.
On the other hand, Aldaba (2008) studied several determinants of international
migration in the Philippines such as income variable, economic condition variables, trade
variables, political variables, and social and cultural factors. Specifically, it looks at the
relationship of trade and migration. The key policy recommendation is to continue with
the economic reforms such as improving trade openness to increase the employment and
income possibilities of the Filipino people. In addition to this, the government needs to
ensure the protection and welfare of the overseas contract workers.
Brucker et al. (2003) analyzed in their study the macroeconomic determinants of
international migration into Germany from countries in the European Union (EU). The
macro migration functions, usually gross or net migration flows are explained in their
study through a set of variables. The choice of the explanatory economic variables is
motivated by microeconomic theories of migration, where individuals form expectations
on utility differences in the respective locations, which are determined by the income
differentials between home and host countries.
People move for combination of several reasons and often they are not aware of
all the forces motivating their move. One factor that predominates in explaining cause of

12

migration is push-pull. Push factors attribute to the negative characteristics operating of

the origin, whereas pull factors identify the positive characteristics at the destination. It
appears that economic opportunities in terms of job availability in primary, secondary,
and tertiary sectors of India worked as central force for Nepalese (Datta, 2002).
De Haas (2010) mentioned in his paper the revised Ravensteins migration laws
by Lee stating migration decisions are determined by plus and minus factors in areas
of origin and destination; intervening obstacles (such as distance, physical barriers,
immigration laws, and so on); and personal factors. Lees analytical framework is
commonly referred to as the push-pull model. This model usually identifies various
economic, environmental, and demographic factors which are assumed to push migrants
out of places of origin and attract them into destination places.
In addition to De Haas (2010), who also explained on the other hand the neoclassical economic theory. This theory sees migration as a function of geographical
differences in the relatively scarcity of labor and capital. The resulting wage differentials
cause workers to move from low-wage, labor-surplus regions to high-wage, labor-scarce
regions.
Jennissen (2004) believed that there are two types of macro-economic indicators
of international migration. The first type comprises labor market indicators. Examples of
these indicators are unemployment rates, the labor participation of women or the amount
of human capital in a country. The second type of indicators pertains to productivity
indicators (e.g. GDP or GNP per capita).
King and Skeldon (2010) as cited by Ramos (2014) stated that migration of
workers within the home country pushed those individuals to work abroad particularly to

13

destination country that tends to be less selective for the education and wealth status of
workers overtime.
In the study of Todaro and Harris (1970), they account for the significant urban
unemployment that was found in many less developed countries. Migration is not
completely risk-free, because the migrant does not necessarily get a job upon arrival in
the city. Rural-urban migration occurs, as long as the expected real income differential is
positive.
According to Piore (1979), migration is the result of a temporary pull factor,
namely strong structural labor demand in developed countries. It is not purely economic
approach; there is economic dualism on the labor market of developed countries and
wages. The temporary labor migration, caused by inflation, was offered to the migrants
because the changes in the wages in the unskilled sector were unattractive to the citizens
of the host country.
Based on the work of Sjaastad (1962), migration is treated as an individual
investment decision to increase the productivity of human capital, thus again focusing on
the labor market, but at the same time migrants.
The Philippines had a history of sending migrant workers abroad to increase
domestically-earned income. The slow and unstable GDP per capita growth and high
unemployment rate, combined with a rising population, and a willingness to work in any
location far away from their families, have conditioned many Filipino workers to view
overseas work as an often option. The acknowledgement of government to the scarce
domestic opportunities has led to strong support and obligation for finding opportunities
for deploying overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) (Reside, 2009).

14

Gupta (2005) used India as model to analyze the determinants of remittances. He

later found out that a countrys growth over time can be explained by the increase in
migration and total earnings of the migrants. He also believed that remittances are also
affected by the economic environment in source countries. (Gupta, 2005 as cited in
Reside, 2009)
Impacts of International Labor Migration to home and host country
A host country experiences both advantages and challenges as a result of
immigration. Larger migrations have created huge population surges. The higher
population numbers placed damage on the infrastructure and services within the host
country. When immigrants move to a new country, they are faced with many unknowns,
including finding employment and housing, as well as adjusting to new laws, cultural
norms, and possibly a new language. It can be a challenge for a host country
to understand immigrants into society and provide the necessary support. Immigration
does cause an increase in the labor force. This can impact great quantities of them if the
immigrants are generally the same type of worker (e.g. low-skilled) and immigrate in
large enough numbers so as to significantly expand the supply of labor.
Some believe that immigration brings many advantages to a country both for the
economy and society as a whole. Others believe that high immigration numbers threaten
national identity, increase dependence on welfare, and threaten national security (through
illegal immigration or terrorism). Another argument is that a high immigration rate
cheapens labor (Boundless, 2015).
The home country also faces specific challenges in regards to immigration. In
many cases, immigrants move to another country to provide positive changes for their

15

future. Reasons to immigrate can include the standard of living, the too low value of
wages, a slow job market, or a lack of educational opportunities. Large amounts of
immigration will weaken the population of home country due decreasing labor force, the
level of production, and economic spending. If a country is losing citizens due to
economic reasons, the situation will not improve until economic changes are made but
many individuals do not forget their home country and continue to support family
members financially through the income from the country they migrate (Boundless,
2015).
Winters and Walmsley (2003) studied that international migration can have
positive impacts on both the home and host country, providing remittances to origin and
the needed human resources to destination. International migration also has the possible
effect of facilitating the transfer of skills and contributing to cultural enrichment.
Therefore, one should also maintain international migration that demand the loss of
human resources for many countries of origin and may give rise to political, economic or
social pressure in countries of destination.
There are conflicting views on the impact of immigration on the economies of
receiving countries. Some believe that migrants steal the jobs and depress the wages.
Another argument is that immigration has the potential of producing conflict among
ethnic groups. Finally, the foes of immigration argue that increasing number of migrants
may destroy the local communitys identity and its institutions. Allies of immigration, on
the other hand, argue that immigrants are not the cause of job loss on the side of local
population. The allies also add that migrants create added value to the economy since
they are also consumers and stimulate the economy which in turn creates new jobs. In

16

addition, international migration has the potential of facilitating the transfer of skills and
contributing to cultural enrichment. (MFA, 2015)
The economic benefits of international migration can be measured by the higher
real wages and income that the migrant worker can earn abroad during his or her
remaining working life, over and above what he or she could have earned at home. Other
benefits may be greater educational and job opportunities for the migrants children.

17

METHODOLOGY
This section includes the research design, hypothesis, sources of data, participants
of the study, data gathering procedure, and statistical treatment of data used to address the
research problem.
Research Design
This study used the time series or longitudinal research design. The time series is
a set of observations, each one being recorded at a specific time (Brockwell and Davis,
2002). In addition, Kowalczyk (2015) defined longitudinal research as the study on a
sample of the population at intervals to examine the effects of development. Longitudinal
research design was used to determine the trend in macroeconomic variables that affect
the number of OFWs going to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) such as GDP per capita,
misery index, and remittances.
Hypothesis of the study
It was hypothesized that there is no significant relationship between the
deployment of OFWs and the selected macroeconomic variables such as GDP per capita,
misery index, and remittances.
Sources of Data
The study used secondary data in determining the labor movements of OFWs
from Philippines to KSA from the year 1995 through the year 2014. Information
regarding the macroeconomic variables affecting international labor migration came from
various readings. The data on deployment of OFWs going to KSA was derived from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

18

Misery index (combined inflation rate and unemployment rate) for both the home
and host countries were obtained from World Development Indicators (WDI). Some
missing values for the unemployment rates of KSA were derived from Central
Department of Statistics and Information (CDSI) website while some missing values for
the unemployment rates of the Philippines were derived from Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA) website.
Information regarding the annual GDP per capita (current US $) were obtained
from the World Development Indicators (WDI) database while the remittances (in
thousand U.S. dollars) were derived from Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) website.
Data Gathering Procedure
The data on annual deployment of OFWs going to KSA were downloaded from
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) official webpage. The data
on GDP per capita (current US $) and misery index (combined inflation rate and
unemployment rate) were downloaded from World Development Indicators (WDI),
Central Department of Statistics and Information (CDSI), and Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA) database while the data on remittances (in thousand U.S. Dollars) came
from Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) website.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The study used trend analysis based on historical data about the labor movements
performance of OFWs going to KSA in order to analyze the trend and behavior of the
variables. Multiple regression analysis was also used to determine the functional
relationship between the dependent and independent variables or the relationship between

19

the deployment of OFWs and the selected macroeconomic variables such as GDP per
capita, misery index, and remittances. The function was specified as:
NW = f(GDP, MI, REM)
The regression model was presented as follows:
NW =

0+ 1 GDP X + 2 GDPY + 3 MI X + 4 MI Y + 5 REM X +

where:
NW = number of deployed land-based workers in KSA

= coefficient

= home country or Philippines

= host country or KSA

GDP = GDP per capita (current US $)

MI

= misery index

REM = cash remittances (in thousand U.S. $)

= error

20

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the analysis of the labor movements of Overseas Filipino
Workers (OFWs) from Philippines to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
Behavior of Deployment of OFWs to KSA, 1994 to 2014
The Philippines' venture into international labor migration was supposed to be
temporary, lasting only until the country recovered from its economic problems.
However, the continuing demand for workers in the Gulf countries and the opening of
new labor markets in other regions, especially in East and Southeast Asia, fueled further
migration.
At the same time, the oil-rich Gulf countries needed workers to compete their
infrastructure projects. With supply and demand factors converging, the Philippines
ventured into large-scale labor migration (Asis, 2006).
Table 1 and Figure 2 show the behavior of deployed OFWs to KSA (landbased). It
shows unstable trend in deployment of OFWs to KSA for the past 20 years from 1995 to
2014.
In 1995, the Philippines started to deploy a total of 168,604 OFWs to KSA. On
the next year, the growth rate of deployment of OFWs to KSA decreased by 7.57 percent
which may be attributed to the implementation of Republic Act No. 8042. The Republic
Act No. 8042 states that the state shall not promote overseas employment as a means to
sustain economic growth and achieve national development (POEA, 1996).

21

Table 1. Deployment of OFWS to KSA (Landbased), 1995 - 2014

YEAR
1995

DEPLOYMENT OF OFWS TO
KSA (LANDBASED)
168,604

GROWTH RATE
(%)
-

1996

155,848

-7.57

1997

160,302

2.86

1998

193,698

20.83

1999

198,556

2.51

2000

184,724

-6.97

2001

190,732

3.25

2002

193,157

1.27

2003

169,011

-12.50

2004

188,107

11.30

2005

194,350

3.32

2006

223,459

14.98

2007

238,419

6.69

2008

275,933

15.73

2009

291,419

5.61

2010

293,049

0.56

2011

316,736

8.08

2012

330,040

4.20

2013

382,553

15.91

2014

402,873

5.31

AVE

237,578.5

5.02

In 1998, the Philippines was able to regain and increase its growth rate of 20.83
percent since the Middle East countries overtook Asia which used to be the top
destination. Due to the financial crisis in Asia, the Middle East countries ranked as the
top destination of OFWs (POEA, 1998).

Number of OFWs
Year

22

Deployed OFWs to KSA (Landbased)

450000
400000
350000
300000
250000

Deployed OFWs to KSA (Landbased)

200000
150000
100000
50000
0

Figure 2. Deployed OFWs to KSA (Landbased)

There has been 3.25 percent growth rate in the number of deployed OFWs to KSA
due to the seen surge in demand in 2001 for high-end skills as nurses, other professionals
and technical workers (POEA, 2001). In 2002, the deployment of OFWs to KSA grew by
1.27 percent due to increase of new hires and re-hires. KSA displaced UK as the top
employer of Filipino nurses (POEA, 2002).
The lowest growth rate of negative 12.50 percent was recorded in 2003 due to the
external developments such as the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak
and the increasing competition which negatively affected the deployment target for the
entire year (POEA, 2003). The strong recovery in 2004 of 11.30 percent growth rate was
fuelled by the landbased sector (POEA, 2004).

23

The impressive annual growth may be attributed to the continued confidence of

foreign principals to employ Filipino workers who are competent, highly trained, English
proficient, with caring attitude and adaptable to work environment. The globally
recognized capabilities of Filipino workers have pushed the number of deployed rehires
and new hires (POEA, 2005).
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) remained as the top country of destination
of Filipino workers in 2008 due to the 33 percent growth of Filipino professional nurses
hired during the period. Another factor was the huge increase in the hiring of Filipino
skilled and semi-skilled workers, such as char workers, cleaners, wiremen, waiters,
bartenders, plumbers and pipe fitters (POEA, 2008).
The decrease in deployment of OFWs to KSA from 5.61 percent in 2009 to 0.56
percent in 2010 may be attributed to the thousands of OFWs in distress who were
deported or forcibly repatriated back to the country due to civil unrests, calamities,
economic instabilities, and other similar factors in migrant-receiving countries. The
number of OFWs had increased significantly since Aquino took office in 2010 (Migrante
International, 2015).
As of 2014, the Philippines had sent a total of 402,873 OFWs to KSA
(landbased). For the past 20 years, the highest growth rate of 20.83 percent was recorded
in 1998 while the lowest growth rate of negative 12.50 percent was recorded in 2003. The
average number of deployment of OFWs to KSA for 20-year period was recorded at
237,579 or an average growth rate of 5.02 percent.
According to De Haas (2010), the neo-classical economic theory of migration is a
function of geographical differences in the relatively scarcity of labor and capital. The

24

same with the situation of the Philippines which continues to deploy workers to the oilrich Gulf countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that needs workers.
Trend in Macroeconomic Variables
The macroeconomic variables included in the study were GDP per capita, misery
index, and remittances
Gross Domestic Product per capita. Table 2 and Figure 3 show the trend in
GDP per capita (current US$) of the Philippines and KSA. GDP per capita is the measure
of average income per person in a country. During the year 1995, the Philippines
obtained a GDP per capita of 1,064.84 while KSA had 7,672.49 US dollars.
Table 2. GDP per capita (current US$) of the Philippines and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
1995-2014
YEAR GDP PHILIPPINES GROWTH RATE GDP KSA GROWTH RATE
(US$)
(%)
(US$)
(%)
1995
1,064.84
7,672.49
1996
1,163.85
9.30
8,369.07
9.08
1997
1,131.40
-2.79
8,656.17
3.43
1998
970.61
-14.21
7,559.67
-12.67
1999
1,091.78
12.48
8,203.43
8.52
2000
1,043.46
-4.43
9,354.47
14.03
2001
961.71
-7.83
8,760.09
-6.35
2002
1,004.99
4.50
8,639.14
-1.38
2003
1,015.78
1.07
9,389.54
8.69
2004
1,084.77
6.79
10,853.63
15.59
2005
1,201.00
10.72
13,303.37
22.57
2006
1,398.83
16.47
14,855.00
11.66
2007
1,680.55
20.14
16,050.72
8.05
2008
1,927.55
14.70
19,714.40
22.83
2009
1,831.99
-4.96
16,013.28
-18.77
2010
2,135.93
16.59
19,326.58
20.69
2011
2,358.07
10.40
24,116 .17
24.78
2012
2,587.62
9.73
25,945.97
7.59
2013
2,765.09
6.86
25,819.11
-0.49
2014
2,843.08
2.82
25,409.03
-1.59
AVE
1,563.15
5.70
14,400.57
.7.17

GDP per capita

25

Year
30000.00

25000.00

20000.00

15000.00
GDP (Phil)

GDP (KSA)

10000.00

5000.00

0.00

Figure 3. GDP per capita (current US$) of the Philippines and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
1995-2014
From the start, a big difference in GDP per capita between the home and host
country can be seen. In 1996, the GDP per capita of both countries increased by 9.30
percent for the Philippines and 9.08 percent for KSA. The change in the GDP per capita
for the following years was also observed. From 2012 to 2014, the GDP per capita of the
Philippines and KSA continued to change.
During the time of President Ramos from 1992 to 1997, a broad range of
economic reforms and initiatives were introduced to spur business growth and foreign
investment. This resulted to higher growth rate of 9.30 percent in 1996. The Asian
financial crisis which triggered in 1997 slowed down economic development in the
Philippines with a growth rate of -2.79 percent and a growth rate of -14.21 percent in
1998 (
History Central, 2015).

26

In 1999, the GDP per capita in the Philippines increased by 12.48 percent due to
the continuation of some reforms begun by the Ramos administration by President
Estrada. Important laws to strengthen regulation and supervision of the banking system
and securities markets, to liberalize foreign participation in the retail trade sector, and to
promote and regulate electronic commerce were enacted (
History Central, 2015).
Despite the decrease in growth rate in 2000 by -4.43 percent and -7.83 in 2001,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has made considerable progress in restoring
macroeconomic stability with the help of a well-regarded economic team in the following
years (
History Central, 2015). From 2010, the Aquino administration had been citing the
countrys economic gains (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2015).
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the year 2004 was the best year in the
history of Saudi economy in terms of economic performance since 1982. After achieving
a positive growth in 2003 and 2004, KSA achieved a growth rate of 22.57 percent in 2005
due to the strength of the oil sector, better domestic geo-political environment,
acceleration of reform measures; growth of foreign assets, a strong private sector growth,
and a high growth of corporate earnings (Gulfbase, 2010).
The average OPEC basket oil price stood at US$82.33 per barrel in 2010
compared to US$50.20 a barrel in 2009 and $105.16 in 2008. A peak level of oil price
touched $147.27 a barrel in the international market on 2008 due to geo-political
uncertainties in the Middle East and increased global energy demand (Gulfbase, 2010).

27

In 2009, oil prices plunged sharply thereafter due to global financial and
economic crisis with -18.77 percent growth rate. The KSA has launched mega projects,
including establishment of six economic cities in different regions to achieve balanced
developments to recover from the financial and economic crisis. It was visible in 2010
with a growth rate of 20.69 percent (Gulfbase,2010).
Generally, this may be affected by the technological advances, imports and
exports, social trends, population growth, remittances, and government interventions
(Hawk, 2016). Strong growth in technological innovation tends to give higher GDP
growth rate. Exports bring money into the country, which increases the exporting
nation's GDP while the money spent on imports, leaves the economy and decreases the
importing nation's GDP. The effect of population growth on per capita GDP growth is
negative. On the other hand, remittances have a positive effect on GDP per capita.
The compensation received by OFWs as estimated by the National Statistical
Coordination Board (NSCB) continued to increase resulting in higher estimates of the
Gross National Income (GNI). The GNI represents the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
after accounting for the net primary income from abroad, composed mostly of the
compensation of OFWs. Undoubtedly, the increasing number of OFWs improves the
countrys GNI as estimates of compensation continue on an increasing trend.
Remittances data as reported by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has always been
claimed to boost the GNI as this contributes to higher estimates of household final
consumption expenditures and gross capital formation. In 2011 alone, OFW remittances
amounted to 20.11 billion USD (or Php 871.25 billion), about 6.8 percent of our GNI for
that year. (NSCB, 2012)

28

It was recorded that as of 2014 the Philippines had a total GDP per capita of
2,843.08 US dollars while KSA had 25,409.03 US dollars. It was clearly visible in the
graph that KSA had a higher GDP per capita than the Philippines.
For the past 20 years, the highest growth rate in GDP per capita of the Philippines
was recorded in 2007 at 20.14 percent and lowest growth rate of -14.21 percent in 1998.
On the other hand, for KSA the highest growth rate of 24.78 percent was recorded in
2011 and lowest growth rate of -18.77 percent in 2009. The average GDP per capita of
the Philippines for 20-year period was recorded0 at 1,563.15 US dollars or an average
growth rate of 5.70 percent. On the other hand, KSA had an average GDP per capita of
14,400.57 US dollars or an average growth rate of 7.17 percent.
According to the study of Brucker et al. (2003), the choice of labor migration is
where individuals form expectations on utility differences in the respective locations,
which are determined by the income differentials between home and host countries.
The Philippines sent migrant workers abroad to increase domestically-earned
income. The slow and unstable GDP per capita growth and high unemployment rate,
combined with a rising population, and a willingness to work in any location far away
from their families, have conditioned many Filipino workers to view overseas work as an
often option (Reside, 2009).
Misery index. Misery index is an economic indicator created by an economist,
Arthur Okun, and computed by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate
(Arthur Okun, 1960). The effectiveness of the misery index for both the Philippines and
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) can be obtained by getting the difference.

29

Table 3 and Figure 4 show the misery index or the combined unemployment rate
and inflation rate of the Philippines and KSA. It shows that the Philippines has greater
misery index than KSA.
The difference of both countries in misery index from 1996 to 1997 was 7
percent. The difference in misery index between the home and host country continued to
vary.
Table 3. Misery Index of Philippines and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), 1995-2014
MISERY INDEX (%)
DIFFERENCE
YEAR
Philippines
KSA
(%)
1995
15.9
10.6
5.3
1996
14.9
7.2
7.7
1997
13.5
6.3
7.2
1998
18.6
6.0
12.6
1999
15.3
3.0
12.3
2000
15.2
3.5
11.7
2001
16.3
3.5
12.8
2002
14.2
5.4
8.8
2003
13.5
6.5
7.0
2004
16.7
6.2
10.5
2005
14.2
6.6
7.6
2006
13.5
8.5
5.0
2007
10.3
9.9
0.4
2008
15.6
15.0
0.6
2009
11.7
10.5
1.2
2010
11.1
10.7
0.4
2011
11.6
11.6
0.0
2012
10.2
8.5
1.7
2013
10.1
9.2
0.9
2014
10.9
8.4
2.5
The highest difference in misery index between the two countries was recorded at
2.8 percent in 2001. On the contrary, the misery index of the Philippines equals the
misery index of KSA or zero difference in 2011. According to Datta (2002), push factors
attribute to the negative characteristics of the origin, whereas pull factors identify the

30

positive characteristics of the destination. It appears that economic opportunities in terms

of job availability serves as central force that attracts the home country in deploying
workers to the host country.
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0

Misery index

MISERY INDEX (Phil)

MISERY INDEX (KSA)

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

Year
Figure 4. Misery Index of the Philippines and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), 19952014
Misery index is not only about the real impact of inflation rate, it also recognizes
the impact among the people. Inflation rate is not only about being able to afford goods
and services, but also about the general feeling of whether one can afford those goods and
services or not. At the same time, misery index is also about the non-gainful employment
in an economy (Beja, 2014). It accounts for that state of being jobless and feeling jobless.
A higher misery index implies higher economic ill-being. The misery index can also be
read as the portion of the population who is suffering in the existing economic conditions

31

(Beja, 2014). Moreover, McWhinney (2009) states that the misery index is used to
illustrate the current economic condition. The main assumption in misery index is that an
increasing unemployment rate and high inflation have a negative impact on economic
growth.
In addition, a high (or climbing) misery index has been a political thing resulting
in a change of presidents while a low (or falling) misery index resulted in reelection.
Since both high unemployment and high inflation are major factors to the average wage
earner, its a quick measure to the health of the economy because as inflation rate rises
the cost of living and unemployment rate rises and more people cross economic line into
poverty that would attract work abroad (Inflation data, 2016).
Remittances. Remittance is the process of sending money as an obligation to the
family left in the Philippines. Due to increasing unemployment rate, Filipinos continue to
choose to work abroad to send home remittances that have become an important pillar of
the Philippine economy.
Table 4 and Figure 5 show the trend of cash remittances from Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA) to the Philippines.
In 1995, according to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, cash remittances amounted to
10,435 thousands US dollars. In 1996, remittances increased by 39.10 percent but a
sudden decrease of 62.83 percent was observed on the following year due to the decrease
in deployed OFWs to KSA. It was in 1997 that the lowest growth rate of -62.83 percent
was recorded for the past 20 years. From 5,395 thousands US dollars recorded in 1997,
remittances increased to 33,432 thousands US dollars in 1998 or by 519.68 percent
growth rate due to the increase in deployed OFWs to KSA. The average cash remittances

32

from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) land based amounted to 980,129.70 thousands US
dollars or an average growth rate of 68.40 percent.
Table 4. Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) cash remittances from the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA), 1995-2014
YEAR
CASH REMITTANCES
GROWTH RATE
(in thousands US $)
(%)
1995
10,435
1996
14,515
39.10
1997
5,395
-62.83
1998
33,432
519.68
1999
181,010
441.43
2000
492,990
172.36
2001
607,969
23.32
2002
992,263
63.21
2003
824,484
-16.91
2004
876,674
6.33
2005
947,074
8.03
2006
1,117,013
17.94
2007
1,140,401
2.09
2008
1,384,363
21.39
2009
1,469,194
6.13
2010
1,542,507
4.99
2011
1,611,268
4.46
2012
1,724,663
7.04
2013
2,104,356
22.02
2014
2,522,588
19.87
AVE
980,129.70
68.40
Such growth in remittances could be attributed to the deployment of higher-paid
landbased workers, including professional and service workers such as caregivers/
caretakers, clerks, office managers and utility personnel. OFW remittances account for
about 16 percent of the countrys total current receipts and 10 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP), a larger portion of which continued to originate from the US, Saudi
Arabia, Hongkong, Japan, Singapore and the UAE (POEA, 2003).

33

Observations indicate an increasing annual growth of the number of deployed

OFWs and annual growth in remittances. Annual growth of OFW deployment inched up
and growth of OFW remittances increased (Paderanga, 2014). In 1999, after the Asian
financial crisis and start of political controversies which resulted to the removal of the
Estrada administration in 2001, the remittances declined by 441.43 percent in 1999 to
172.36 percent in 2000 and 23.32 percent in 2001. It was able to recover in the following
year with a growth rate of 63.241. Gupta (2005) believes that a countrys growth over
time can be explained by the increase in migration and total earnings of the migrants.
The growth rates of cash remittances continued to vary. In 2014, the Philippines
had a total amount of 2,522,588 thousands US$ cash remittances from Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA) land based.

34

REMMITANCES from KSA (landbased)

3000000.00

Cash Remittances (in thousands

2500000.00
US$)

2000000.00

Year
1500000.00

REMMITANCES from KSA (landbased)

1000000.00

500000.00

0.00

Figure 5. Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) cash remittances from the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA), 1995-2014

35

Relationship of the Deployment of OFWs in KSA and the Macroeconomic Variables

The multiple regression analysis was used to determine the degree of relationship
of deployment of OFWs in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the macroeconomic
variables namely: GDP per capita, misery index, and remittances. Other statistical
measures were applied in the study to analyze the results; it includes regression
coefficient that represents the rate of change of one variable as a function of changes in
the other variables. Standard error of the coefficient measures the reliability of the
coefficient estimate. T-statistics shows the ratio of the coefficient to its standard error,
while the P value or calculated probability is the probability of finding the observed and

results when the null hypothesis (

H0

) of the study is true.

As shown in Table 5, the intercept result was -16,594.7986. The nature of

relationship between the deployed OFWs to KSA (landbased) to macroeconomic
variables is illustrated by the p-value column. The misery index (Philippines), GDP per
capita (Philippines), and remittance from KSA (landbased) show significant positive
relationship to deployed OFWs to KSA. However the misery index (KSA) and GDP per
capita (KSA) show negative relationship to deployed OFWs to KSA.
The regression equation shows that the coefficient for misery index (Philippines)
was 5,557.62. The coefficient indicates that for every additional misery index in the
Philippines, the deployed OFWs to KSA (landbased) increased by an average of 5,557.62
OFWs. On the other hand, the coefficient for misery index (KSA) was -1,610.85. The

36

coefficient indicates that for every additional misery index in the KSA the deployed
OFWs to KSA (landbased) decreased by an average of -1,610.85 OFWs.

The coefficient for cash remittances from KSA (landbased) was 0.0412. The
coefficient demonstrates that for every additional cash remittances from KSA (landbased)
the deployed OFWs to KSA (landbased) increased by an average of 0.0412 OFWs.
Lack of employment opportunities in the home country and high remittances from
the host country influence the decision of the Filipinos to work abroad. Any increase in
the misery index in the Philippines and remittances suggested that there would be an
increase too in the deployment of Filipino workers to KSA.
Table 5. Regression analysis on the relationship between deployed OFWs to KSA
(landbased) to macroeconomic variables
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
VARIABLES COEFFICIENTS STD. t (df=14) p-value
95%
95%
ERROR
lower
upper
Regression output
Intercept
-16,594.7986 34,486.6797 -0.481 .6378 -90,561.3699 57,371.7728
Misery index 5,557.6244 1,869.1187
2.973 .0101 1,548.7634
9,566.4853
(Phil)
Misery index -1,610.8506 1,172.4428
-1.374 .1911 -4,125.4902
903.7890
(KSA)
GDP (Phil)
138.8611
21.0074
6.610 1.17E-05
93.8047
183.9174
GDP (KSA)
-4.6245
2.3147
-1.998 .0655
-9.5890
0.3400
Remmitances from 0.0412
0.0097
4.262 .0008
0.0205
0.0620
KSA (landbased)
Regression Analysis
R
0.981
Adjusted R 0.975
R
0.991
Std. Error
11984.535
n
20
k
5
Dep. Var.
Deployed OFWs to KSA (Landbased)

37

ANOVA table
Source
Regression
Residual
Total

SS
105,627,383,670.2420
2,010,807,194.7583
107,638,190,865.0000

df
5
14
19

MS
21,125,476,734.0483
143,629,085.3399

F
47.08

p-value
1.38E-11

The coefficient for GDP per capita (Philippines) was 138.86. The coefficient
shows that for every additional GDP per capita in the Philippines, the deployed OFWs to
KSA (landbased) increased by an average of 138.86 OFWs. On the contrary, the
coefficient for GDP per capita (KSA) was -4.6245. The coefficient shows that for every
additional GDP per capita in the KSA, the deployed OFWs to KSA (landbased) decreased
by an average of -4.6245 OFWs.
At first, the number of migrating workers tended to be lower due to increased
level of per capita GDP. However, the relationship between the two variables would be
increasing at a certain point. This change in pattern could be explained by the migration
of unskilled workers. Unlike the skilled and professional workers, unskilled individuals
had lower income in domestic labor markets. Due to this, even though GDP per capita of
the home country was increasing, the unskilled workers look for higher income through
migration in the host countries. This may also be attributed to the OFWs who get used to
receive higher salaries abroad than in the home country. Also, as stated by King and
Skeldon (2010) and Ramos (2014), migration of workers within the home country pushed
those individuals to work abroad particularly to destination country that tends to be less
selective for the education and wealth status of workers overtime.
R-squared was estimated at 0.981 which implies that 98.1 percent of the variation
in deployed OFWs to KSA is explained by the variation in the independent variables

38

included in the model. R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the
regression line.
The results of the regression analysis proves the study of Datta (2002) that
negative characteristics of the Philippines such as higher misery index and lower GDP
per capita than KSA serve as push factors for the Filipinos to choose to work abroad. On
the other hand, the rising remittances from KSA, low misery index (KSA), and higher
GDP per capita (KSA) than the Philippines serve as pull factors that attract Filipinos to
work abroad.
Generally, those variables found in the home country such as the GDP per capita
and misery index had the opposite effects for the host country. On the other hand,
remittances per capita sent by the deployed land-based OFWs in KSA served as a pull
factor for outward labor migration of the workers.

39

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, and RECOMMENDATIONS

This section presents the summary, conclusion, and recommendation of the study.
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the macroeconomic variables that affect
the number of OFWs going to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) from 1995 to 2014 and
the behavior of deployment of land based OFWs in KSA.
The study used secondary data from different government agencies and
organizations such as: Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), World
Development Indicators (WDI) or World Bank, Department of Statistics and Information
(CDSI), Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
Moreover, other information were collected from published and unpublished reports,
internet and previous research studies.
The impressive annual growth in deployment of OFWs to KSA may be attributed
to the continued confidence of foreign principals to employ Filipino workers who are
competent, highly trained, English proficient, with caring attitude and adaptable to work
environment. The globally recognized capabilities of Filipino workers have pushed the
number of deployed rehires and new hires (POEA, 2005).

40

Theres been an increase and decrease on deployment of OFWs in the consecutive

years due to the varying decisions of Filipino workers that maybe partly affected by the
changes in the misery index. As of 2014, the Philippines had sent a total of 402,873
OFWs to KSA (landbased). For the past 20 years, the highest growth rate of 20.83
percent was recorded in year 1998 while the lowest growth rate of -12.50 percent in year
2003. The average number of deployment of OFWs to KSA for 20-year period was
recorded at 237,579 or an average growth rate of 5.02 percent.
In 1995, the Philippines obtained a GDP per capita of 1,064.84 while KSA had
7,672.49 US dollars. From the start, a big difference in GDP per capita between the home
and host country can be seen. In 1996, the GDP per capita of both countries increased by
9.30 percent for the Philippines and 9.08 percent for KSA. An increase and decrease in
the GDP per capita for the following years were also observed. From 2012 to 2014, the
GDP per capita of the Philippines and KSA continued to change.
Generally, this may be affected by the technological advances, imports and
exports, social trends, population growth, remittances, and government interventions
(Hawk, 2016). Strong growth in technological innovation tends to give higher GDP
growth rate. Exports bring money into the country, which increases the exporting
nation's GDP while the money spent on imports, leaves the economy and decreases the
importing nation's GDP. The effect of population growth on per capita GDP growth was
negative. On the other hand, remittances have a positive effect on GDP per capita.
The difference in misery index between the home and host country continued to
vary. The highest difference in misery index between the two countries was recorded at

41

2.8 percent in 2001. On the contrary, the misery index of the Philippines equals the
misery index of KSA or zero difference during the year 2011.
The growth rates of cash remittances continued to vary. In 2014, the Philippines
had a total amount of 2,522,588 thousands US$ cash remittances from Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA) land based.
The regression analysis shows that the misery index (Philippines), GDP per capita
(Philippines), and remittance from KSA (landbased) have positive relationship to
deployed OFWs to KSA. However, the misery index (KSA) and GDP per capita (KSA)
shows negative relationship.
In addition, results of the regression analysis proves the study of Datta (2002) that
negative characteristics of the Philippines such as higher misery index and lower GDP
per capita than KSA serve as push factors for the Filipinos to choose to work abroad. On
the other hand, the rising remittances from KSA, low misery index (KSA), and higher
GDP per capita (KSA) than the Philippines serve as pull factors that attract Filipinos to
work abroad.
Conclusion
Throughout the years the deployment of land based OFWs in Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA) continue to boost.
The deployment of OFWs to KSA is significantly affected by misery index
(Philippines), GDP per capita (Philippines), and remittances from KSA (landbased) thus,
the null hypothesis is rejected.
Lack of employment opportunities in the home country and high remittances from
the host country influence the decision of the workers to work abroad. Any increase in the

42

misery index in the Philippines and remittances suggested that there would be an increase
in the deployment of Filipino workers to KSA. The remittances being sent by the OFWs
have been a great contribution to the growth of the Philippines.
Unlike the skilled and professional workers, unskilled individuals have lower
income in domestic labor markets. Due to this, even though GDP per capita of the home
country is increasing, the unskilled workers look for higher income through migration in
the host countries.
The Philippines has become a successful labor exporter. The big number of
deployed OFWs every year is an indicator that migration will be an important part of the
country's future development plans and prospects. Individuals make decisions based on
their perceptions of what would be beneficial for them.
Recommendations
While the Philippines cannot stop people from leaving, the country will need to
explore how migration can be an instrument for development. In this regard, the
government may learn more from international discussions on international labor
migrations.
Though the remittances being sent by the OFWs have been a great contribution to
the growth of the Philippines, the study recommend to the Philippine government to
provide more job opportunities together with higher wages within the country. This
would encourage Filipinos to stay home than work abroad.
To those who want to study the same concept, the study recommends considering
other macroeconomic variables like population growth, real wage rate, labor force

43

participation rate, and job vacancies and trying Asian countries such as Singapore,
Malaysia, and Hong Kong since the number of OFWs there is blooming.

REFERENCES
Acupan, A. and Agbola, F. (2007). On the Determinants of International Labor
Migration in the Philippines.
Ahmad, N., Hussain, Z., Hussain, M., et.al. (2008). Macroeconomic Determinants of
International Migration from Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review.
85-99.
Albert, J. R. G. (2012). Counting and Monitoring the Contributions of OFWs (The
Nations New Heroes). Retrieved 16 Feb 2016 from: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/
beyondthenumbers/2012/10082012_jrga_ofw.asp
Aldaba, F. (2000). Trade Liberalization and International Migration: The Philippine
Case. Ateneo de Manila University Discussion Paper No. 04.
Asis, M. (2006). The Philippines Culture of Migration. Migration Information Source.
Beja, E. L., Jr. (2014). Philippine Misery Index: An initial Assesment-Eaglewatch.
Retrieved 19 Feb 2016 from: http://www.admu.edu.ph/news/research/philippinemisery-index-initial-assessment-eaglewatch-dr-edsel-l-beja-jr
Boundless. (2015). Impact of Immigration on the Host and Home Country Economies.
Boundless Economics. Boundless, 18 Sep. 2015. Retrieved 26 Oct. 2015
from https://www.boundless.com/economics/textbooks/boundless-economicstextbook/immigration-economics-38/introduction-to-immigration-economics138/impact-of-immigration-on-the-host-and-home-country-economies-54612643/
Brockwell, P. and Davis, R. (2002). Introduction to Time Series and Forecasting.
Second Edition. Page No. 1
Brucker, H., Siliverstovs, B., and Trubswetter, P. (2003). International Migration to
Germany: Estimation of a Time-Series Model and Inference in Panel

44

Cointegration. Discussion Paper No. 391.

Datta, P. (2002). Nepali Migration to India. Paper presented at the Regional Population
Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.
de Haas, H. (2010). Migration Transitions: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry.
University of Oxford.
Gulfbase. (2010). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Economic Overview. Retrieved 18 Feb 2016
from: http://www.gulfbase.com/Gcc/Index/1
Hagen-Zanker, J. (2008). Why do people migrate? A review of the theoretical literature.
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance Working Paper 002.
Hagiu, A. (2011). Costs and Benefit of International Labor Migration. 27-36.
Harris, J. and Todaro, M. (1970). Migration, Unemployment and Development: A TwoSector Analysis. The American Economic Review. 126-142.
Hawk, R. and Hubbard, E. (2016). What factors affect GDP trends? Retrieved from
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-factors-affect-gdp-trends.htm
History Central. (2015). Economy: Philippines. Retrieved 18 Feb 2016 from:
http://www.historycentral.com/nationbynation/Philippines/Economy.html
Hoffmann-Nowotny, H. J. (1981). A Sociological Approach Toward a General Theory of
Migration. New York: Centre for Migration Studies. Retrieved from:
http://www.popline.org/node/409842
Inflation Data. (2016). Misery Index. Retrieved 03 Feb 2016 from
http://inflationdata.com/articles/misery-index/
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2006). ILO Multilateral Framework on
Labour Migration.
International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2013).Country Migration Report: The
Philippines.
Jennissen, R. (2004). Macroeconomic Determinants of International Migration in
Europe. Netherlands: Dutch University Press.
King, R. and Skeldon, R. (2010). Mind the Gap: Integrating Approaches to Internal and
International Migration. Journal of Ethic and Migration Studies
Kowalczyk, D. (2015). Longitudinal Designs: Definition & Examples. Retrieved 03

45

Feb. 2016 from http://study.com/academy/lesson/longitudinal-designs-definitionexamples.html

Lee, E. (1966). A Theory of Migration. Demography. 47-57.
Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G. et.al. (1993). Theories of International Migration: A
Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review. 431-466.
McWhinney, J. E. (2009). The Misery Index: Measuring Your Misfortune.

MFA. (2015). Opportunities And Challenges Of International Migration For Sending

And Receiving Countries Retrieved 26 Oct. 2015 from
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/opportunuties-and-challenges-of-international-migrationfor-sending-and-receiving-countries.tr.mfa
Migrante International. (2015). Number of OFWs leaving daily rose from 2,500 in 2009
to 6,092 in 2015 Retrieved 16 Feb 2016 from: http://migranteinternational.org/
2015/07/29/sona2015-number-of-ofws-leaving-daily-rose-from-2500-in-2009-to6092-in-2015/
Paderanga, C. W., Jr. (2014). The macroeconomic impact of Remittances in the
Philippines.
Piore, M. (1979). Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. Cambridge
University Press. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972564?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2015). 2010-2015 SONA promises. Retrieved 19 Feb 2016
from: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/707357/2010-2015-sona-promises-keptnot-yetkept-part-2
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (1996). POEA Annual Report.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (1998). POEA Annual Report.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2001). POEA Annual Report.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2002). POEA Annual Report.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2003). POEA Annual Report.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2004). POEA Annual Report.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2005). POEA Annual Report.

46

Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2008). POEA Annual Report.

Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. (2011). POEA Annual Report.
Ramos, A. P. N. (2014). Analysis of the macroeconomic variables affecting labor
movements of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) from Philippines to Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA).
Reside, R. E. Jr. (2009). Determinants of Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) Remittances
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia. (2015). Economy and Global Trade. Retrieved 17 Nov
2015 from https://www.saudiembassy.net/about/countryinformation/economy_global_trade/
Sjaastad, L. (1962). The Costs and Returns of Human Migration. Journal of Political
Economy. 80-93. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829105?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Tan, V. (2006). Labor Migration and the Philippine Labor Market. Journal of
Immigrant and Refugee Studies. 25-45.
Winters, L. A. and Walmsley, T.L. (2003). Liberalizing Temporary Movement of
Natural Persons: An Agenda for the Development Round. The World Economy,
Vol: 26.

47

APPENDICES

48

Appendix 1
Deployment of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), 1995-2014
Year
1995

Total
Deployment
653574

Landbased
Deployment
488173

Seabased
Deployment
165401

Deployment of OFWs
to KSA (landbased)
168604

1996

660122

484653

175469

155848

1997

747696

559227

188469

160302

1998

831643

638343

193300

193698

1999

837020

640331

196689

198556

2000

841628

643304

198324

184724

2001

866590

661639

204951

190732

2002

891908

682315

209593

193157

2003

867969

651938

216031

169011

2004

933588

704586

229002

188107

2005

988615

740632

247983

194350

2006

1062567

788070

274497

223459

2007

1077623

811070

266553

238419

2008

1236013

974399

261614

275933

2009

1422586

1092162

330424

291419

2010

1470826

1123676

347150

293049

49

2011

1687831

1318727

369104

316736

2012

1802031

1435166

366865

330040

2013

1935345

1469179

367166

382553

2014

1932669

1430842

401826

402873

Source: Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)

Appendix 2
Misery Index in the Philippines, 1995-2014
YEAR
1995

Inflation Rate
(%)
6.8

Unemployment Rate
(%)
9.1

MISERY INDEX
(%)
15.9

1996

7.5

7.4

14.9

1997

5.6

7.9

13.5

1998

9.2

9.4

18.6

1999

5.9

9.4

15.3

2000

4.0

11.2

15.2

2001

5.3

11.0

16.3

2002

2.7

11.5

14.2

2003

2.3

11.2

13.5

2004

4.8

11.9

16.7

2005

6.5

7.7

14.2

2006

5.5

8.0

13.5

2007

2.9

7.4

10.3

2008

8.3

7.3

15.6

2009

4.2

7.5

11.7

2010

3.8

7.3

11.1

50

2011

4.6

7.0

11.6

2012

3.2

7.0

10.2

2013

3.0

7.1

10.1

2014

4.1

6.8

10.9

Sources: World Development Indicators (WDI) and Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)
Appendix 3
Misery Index in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), 1995-2014
YEAR
1995

Inflation Rate
(%)
4.9

Unemployment Rate
(%)
5.7

MISERY INDEX
(%)
10.6

1996

1.2

6.0

7.2

1997

0.1

6.2

6.3

1998

-0.4

6.4

6.0

1999

-1.3

4.3

3.0

2000

-1.1

4.6

3.5

2001

-1.1

4.6

3.5

2002

0.2

5.2

5.4

2003

0.6

5.9

6.5

2004

0.3

5.9

6.2

2005

0.7

5.9

6.6

2006

2.2

6.3

8.5

2007

4.2

5.7

9.9

2008

9.9

5.1

15.0

2009

5.1

5.4

10.5

2010

5.3

5.4

10.7

2011

5.8

5.8

11.6

51

2012

2.9

5.6

8.5

2013

3.5

5.7

9.2

2014

2.7

5.7

8.4

Sources: World Development Indicators (WDI) and Central Department of Statistics and
Information (CDSI)

Appendix 4
Request for oral review of thesis proposal

52

Appendix 5
Request for oral
review of thesis
manuscript

53

54