Zenit reports:
"Money Sent Home: A Boost for Many Nations
Study Highlights Role of Migration in Helping Development
WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 26, 2005 - International migration can be an important tool in helping developing countries, affirmed a World Bank report published Nov. 16. Migrants and the money they send back home, remittances, is the main theme in the annual "Global Economic Prospects report for 2006."
"The challenge facing policy-makers is to fully achieve the potential economic benefits of migration, while managing the associated social and political implications," commented François Bourguignon, World Bank chief economist.
Officially recorded remittances worldwide exceeded $232 billion in 2005. Of this, developing countries received $167 billion, more than twice the level of development aid from all sources. The report estimates that remittances sent through informal channels could add at least 50% to the official tally, making them the largest source of external capital in many developing countries. The report considered that it is plausible that in the coming years, official remittance flows will continue to rise at the 7% to 8% annual rate seen during the 1990s.
The countries receiving the most in recorded remittances are India ($21.7 billion), China ($21.3 billion), Mexico ($18.1 billion), France ($12.7 billion) and the Philippines ($11.6 billion). Those for which remittances account for the largest proportion of gross domestic product are Tonga (31%), Moldova (27.1%), Lesotho (25.8%), Haiti (24.8%) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (22.5%).
Remittances were larger than public and private capital inflows in 36 developing countries in 2004. In another 28 countries, they were larger than the earnings from the most important commodity export. In Mexico, for example, remittances are larger than foreign direct investment, and in Sri Lanka they are larger than tea exports.
The United States was the largest source country, with nearly $39 billion in outward remittances in 2004. ...
Costs and benefits
The World Bank explained that over the past two decades barriers to cross-border trade and financial transactions have fallen significantly, facilitating the transfer of money. At the same time, despite its economic benefits, migration remains controversial. While it brings benefits for some there can be important losses for other individuals and groups. Some workers may see an erosion of wages or employment, for example, due to the increased numbers of immigrants.
Migrants, too, pay a price, even if they reap economic advantages. Many immigrants, the report explained, particularly the irregular ones, suffer from exploitation and abuse. Then there are costs involved, especially those related to the exorbitant fees paid to traffickers. The family members left behind, particularly children, also suffer, while at the same time they benefit from the extra income that migrants send back home to their families. ...
The World Bank did warn, however, that in the long run the policies of developing countries should aim to generate adequate employment and rapid growth, rather than relying on migration as an alternative to development opportunities.
Losing skills
The situation is different in the case of emigration by those with high levels of skill. It also brings economic benefits, and when the expatriates return they bring with them important overseas connections, which can improve access to capital and technology, as well as business contacts for firms in the country of origin.
But, on the negative side, large outflows of high-skilled workers can reduce growth in the origin country. Education and health services in the countries of origin may be impaired due to the loss of personnel. As well, the country loses its return on high-skilled workers trained at public expense..."
While generally friendly to e/immigration, the Catholic Church, using social science data from the 1960's, has frowned upon "brain drain" - the transnational migration of highly skilled workers from developing countries to developed countries. In a though provoking book (forthcoming), VIllanova's Michele Pistone argues that the social science data underlying the Church's position is wrong (or at least has been superceded). Her research, much like the World Bank's report, suggests that the development picture is much more complex than the Church seemed to assume 30 or 40 years ago, and that the so-called "brain drain" may actually have a positive effect on developing countries.
I have invited Professor Pistone to comment on the World Bank's report and on her own work in this area and look forward to receiving her comments.
Michael
Last week Steve Shiffrin blogged on "Person's with 'Homosexual Tendencies' in the Priesthood." In that post, he discusses an NCR article: "The article is mainly about Fr. John J. McNeill who wrote The Church and Homosexuality in 1976 in which he rejected Vatican teachings on same sex relations and became something of a celebrity. The article suggests that McNeill's intellectual successor is Daniel Helminiak, a 62-year-old psychotherapist and professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia. Helminiak is the author What the Bible Really Says About Sexuality. He is convinced "the old biblical, theological and psychological disputes have now been resolved in favor of gay and lesbian relationships." He maintains the evidence is “incontrovertible.” [I wish it were that good!]"
On a personal level, I hold Daniel Helminiak in high esteem, but I must confess that I haven't read his book. What is the basis for his conclusion that "the old biblical, theological and psychological disputes have now been resolved in favor of gay and lesbian relationships"? On what basis does he conclude that the evidence is "incontrovertible"?
Thanks, Michael S.
I tend to mind my own business in public -- that is, until someone decides to start using obscenities around my kids, at which time I enter confrontational mode, motivated by the worthiest of causes. But is my cause worthy? What's the problem with swearing? And if it's not OK for kids, why is it OK for adults? My evangelical sensibilities bristle even when I hear folks swear in an adults-only context, especially when it's done by fellow followers of Christ. In this regard, check out Joe Carter's long overdue "Christian Critique of Swearing."
Certainly my sensitivity has dulled over the years since a childhood when I would equate a stray four-letter word with a greased chute to Hell (especially since one of the coolest Christians alive does it), but the question persists: is it OK for Christians to swear? Is opposition to swearing tied up in a legalistic approach to faith? Should the ongoing cultural engagement project challenge the rapidly loosening standards of proper speech in our public life?
Rob
Rick asks a fair question in response to my post on the SCOTUS Catholics: where's my data re whether they in fact follow the Novak line on the relationship of Catholicism to the market? Well, neither Kennedy, Thomas or Scalia have quoted either Novak or Fr. Neuhaus (far as I know), and their attitudes toward government regulation probably have as much to do with their (secular) conservatism as their religious beliefs. And we don't know much yet about Roberts and Alito, although it does seem that Robert's approach may reflect the pro-business philosophy of Republicans who have spent much of their career in large law firms. Does that make them "economic libertarians" as Foer describes them? Thomas seems close to that description, Scalia seems mostly preoccupied with originalism rather than economic theory, Kennedy has always struck me as a kind of country-club Republican,and we don't know enough yet aboutt Roberts and Alito. That being said, if I had to predict how they will behave as judges, I would predict that they would cleave much closer to the Novak line than to the mainstream Catholic tradition of profound ambivalence about the virtues of the market.
--Mark
For an excellent statement on the Church’s position on gays in the priesthood, see Father Gerard Thomas, A Source of Scandal, http://www.beliefnet.com/story/179/story_17969_1.html#cont. Among other things, he says:
“[T]he document statement that gay men per se are incapable of relating to men and women is one of the most offensive things I have ever read in any church document about homosexuals. It says to gay men--and by extension, celibate gay priests who have long been in ministry--that they are simply unable to relate to their fellow human beings. After years of dedicated service--after hearing confessions, baptizing infants, preparing people for marriage, sitting by the beds of the sick and dying, and counseling people in trouble--the gay priest is told he doesn't understand people and cannot relate to them.
The recent Instruction is breathtaking in its lack of understanding of the lived experience of celibate gay priests and of gay men and women. It is, to use some official church terminology, a cause for "scandal," something that will cause people to lose heart in the church. And sometime in the future the Catholic [C]hurch will find itself having to apologize for speaking so callously about an entire group of people.
Where, in the end, is the message of Jesus in this document? Where is his message of inclusion and encouragement and love? It is nowhere.”
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Mark's sojourn in the land of la dolce vita has wound down, and we're pleased to have him back in full-on-MOJ-posting mode. He notes (nicely):
The latest issue of issue of Commonweal contained Rick's characteristically insightful review of three relatively new books on Church/State, including Noah Feldman's, which was discussed at length here on MOJ, and Marci Hamilton's GOD VS. THE GAVEL, which we did discuss, although not at as great length. I suspect that the strict limits on the length of reviews in my favorite mag kept Rick from a longer critique of Marci's book (Rick -- am I wrong?).
No, Mark is not wrong. I share Mark's affection for Marci Hamilton, and also his concern that she goes too far "in her willingness to chop back constitutional protections for religious practices."
A question for Mark, who observes:
[Foer] emphasizes the political implications of this convergence by pointing out the increased use of Catholic CST rhetoric in Bush's last presidential campaign (solidarity, the common good, protecting the weakest member of society, etc.) I'll let the readers decide for themselves whether that use of this rhetoric meant anything or whether it was just cant --you can imagine where I stand on that.)
Actually, Mark . . . where do you stand on that? Do you think that Bush's use of "CST rhetoric" was entirely or "just cant"?
I also think Foer goes astray (in his very good piece) in characterizing the (soon) five Catholics on the Court as "economic libertarians." There is simply no evidence that these Justices are "economic libertarians"; that they interpret and apply laws enacted by a Congress that has long been "pro-business," or that they interpret and enforce constitutional provisions that reflect a (perhaps) "libertarian" desire to protect individual rights by constraining government power, does not make them "economic libertarians." Similarly, I think Mark missteps when he refers to the "highly tendentious and contested nature of [the Justices'] Catholicism, particularly with respect to the social and economic issues" or to "their Novak-inspired 'Catholic' view of the proper relationship between the market and the state[.]" My own views, as Mark knows, are closer to Neuhaus's than his are -- and are, as I'm sure Mark would concede, "Catholic" without the scare quotes -- but still: I do not believe there is data from which Mark could fairly draw conclusions about the "tendentious and contested nature" of the Justices' Catholicism on "economic issues" (or, for that matter, "social issues").
In any event, welcome home!
[From The Tablet, Nov. 26, 2005.]
Catholic support for death penalty grows in US.
NEARLY FOUR years of sexual abuse scandals in the United States have
had little impact on the belief patterns of American Catholics,
according to a new survey.
The research, which
has been carried out every six years since 1987 by a group of
sociologists at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC,
also shows that Catholic support for the death penalty has risen and an
increasing number of Catholics disagree with church teaching on
abortion.
Dr William
D’Antonio, of the Life Cycle Institute at the university, said he had
expected there to be a significant decline in church attendance in
response to the scandals.
“We were
surprised because we thought that if the impact had been deep there
would be a greater drop in church attendance,” Dr D’Antonio told The Tablet.
Since the last survey in 1999 weekly churchgoing had declined by 4 per
cent among Catholics over 65, by 8 per cent among 45- to 64-year-olds
and by 1 per cent among those under 44.
Dr D’Antonio added
that the drop had been less among those who went to church once a
month. “The theory is that if a person is hugely committed and the
organisation betrays them they will struggle to change the organisation
rather than leaving it,” he said. “People with low commitment require
less of the organisation and so long as it fulfils the criteria of
birth, marriage and death they will never leave.”
Meanwhile, the
percentage of people who believed they could be a good Catholic without
agreeing with the Church on abortion rose from 39 per cent when the
first survey was carried out in 1987 to 58 per cent this year.
Catholics also disagreed with the Church on the death penalty, with 57
per cent supporting its stiffer enforcement.
The survey also
examined political affiliation, finding that 41 per cent of Catholics,
the majority of them women, declare themselves Democrat and 37 per cent
are Republican. However, 62 per cent of 18- to 24-year-old Catholics
had voted for the Democrat challenger John Kerry in the last election.
The research was carried out by Gallup using a random sample of 875 practising Catholics.
Isabel de Bertodano, Washington, DC
