I ONLY VERY RECENTLY (TWO DAYS AGO) got my hands on the latest (2009) UNDP Human Development Report (UNHDR), which was launched in October last year. I guess that really shows how far behind the technology curve I am, because I am more comfortable reading a hard copy rather than a soft copy of any document. The reason being that I can mark a hard copy, whereas marking a soft copy is beyond my computer capabilities.

If the Philippines 2008-2009 HDR is a fascinating analysis of Institutions, Politics and Human Development in the Philippines, the 2009 HDR has just as fascinating a topic: Human Mobility (read Migration) and Development. Its main point is that large gains to human development (which may be defined as people realizing their potential, increasing their choices and enjoying the freedom to lead lives they value) can be achieved by lowering the barriers to movement, and improving the treatment of movers. And it then proceeds to make a case for a comprehensive set of reforms that can provide major benefits to migrants, communities and countries.

But in the process of making that case, it certainly destroys some very common misconceptions. For example, if one thinks that most movement of people takes place between countries, think again: latest data show that while there were 200 million international migrants, a conservative estimate is that there were approximately 740 million internal migrants.

Moreover, if you think that most movement in the world takes place between developing and developed countries, think again. It turns out that most of the world?s 200 million international migrants moved either from one developing country to another, or between developed countries. Only a third (or fewer than 70 million people) moved from a developing to a developed country.

Another surprising fact is that the more developed a country is, the more mobile its people are: ?? history and contemporary evidence suggest that development and migration go hand in hand: the median emigration rate in a country with low human development is below 4 percent, compared to more than 8 percent from countries with high levels of human development.? Which actually makes sense, when one thinks of it: while the poorest may gain most from moving, they also move less, thanks to barriers to movement, which are greatest against them.

The 2009 HDR has a table showing emigration rates for the period 2000-2002, and from just eyeballing it, the 38 countries classified as with ?Very High Human Development,? i.e., where their Human Development Indices (HDI) were greater than 0.90, also show very large emigration rates, with the glaring exception of the United States, and Japan, whose emigration rates were 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively. Certainly, most of them had emigration rates larger than the Philippines? 4.0 percent (which, by the way, is the same as Canada?s). Switzerland, for example, has an emigration rate of 5.6 percent, Iceland (ranked No. 3 in terms of the HDI) has 10.6 percent, New Zealand has 11.8 percent, Ireland has 20 percent, the United Kingdom has 6.6 percent, and Singapore has 6.3 percent. It is also interesting, but not unexpected, to note that the Philippines has the highest emigration rate among the Asean countries (except for Singapore, cited above). Thailand?s is 1.3 percent, Indonesia?s is 0.9 percent, Vietnam?s is 2.4 percent.

The 2009 HDR also busts another myth: the belief that low-skilled migrant workers displace local workers and reduce wages (which is why host governments impose greater barriers on them), not to mention that their presence heightens the risk of crime, as well as adds burdens on local services and leads to the loss of social and cultural cohesion (it is difficult to assimilate them). The report points out that while indeed, research has found that migration can, under certain circumstances, have negative effects on locally born workers with comparable skills, ?the body of evidence suggests that these effects are generally small and may, in some contexts, be entirely absent.? On the contrary, it argues that these migrants boost economic output, at little or no cost to locals. As to the loss of cohesion and inability to assimilate the foreigners, it reminds us that in the early 20th century, the same fears were expressed in the United States about Irish immigrants?fears that, as it turns out, were unwarranted.

The bottom line of the report is that migration can be a win-win situation for all concerned: the movers, the destination country/community, and the source country/community. Thus it recommends a core package of reforms (comprised of six ?pillars?), which ?together offer the best chance of maximizing the human development impacts of migration: liberalizing and simplifying regular channels that allow people with low skills to seek work abroad; ensuring basic rights for migrants; reducing transaction costs associated with migration; improving outcomes for migrants and destination communities; enabling benefits from internal mobility; and making mobility an integral part of national development strategies.?

An excellent set of suggestions. But it also reminds us that ?international migration, even if well managed, does not amount to a national human development strategy? Migration is at best an avenue that complements broader local and national efforts to reduce poverty and improve human development. These efforts remain as critical as ever.?

The 2009 UNDP Human Development Report should be made required reading for all the leader wannabes?local and national.