{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0220949263502455, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002727768685215494, 'mean_word_length': 5.643115942028985, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Democratization through Migration? Political Remittances and Participation of Philippine Return Migrants

The increasingly important role of remittances as a source of external finance for less developed countries has led to policymakers and scholars debating the possibility that migration could lead to better development outcomes. Other migration scholars have posited that “social remittances” also have an important impact on developing countries, including the possibility that democratic norms (via “political remittances”) could travel the same path as financial remittances and lead to greater support for democratic transition and democratic consolidation in less developed countries. Much of this work has been necessarily speculative, given the complexity of these processes. The literature on migration, democracy, and development is, thus, replete with calls for more case research that can inform these debates. Christl Kessler and Stephan Rother have provided an exemplary form of this much-needed research in their important and carefully researched Democratization through Migration? Political Remittances and Participation of Philippine Return Migrants. Kessler and Rother use the case of the Philippines, the paradigmatic case of a labor-exporting state, to assess the impact of migration on Overseas Foreign Workers (OFWs) who have returned to the Philippines. Specifically, they set out “to explore the effects of the migration experiences on the political attitudes of migrants in different settings” (15). Working with academic and survey partners in the Philippines, they administered quite extensive large-N surveys to both a control group of first-time migrants (before they depart) and the subject group of returning migrants (n = 1,000 for each group). They also conducted in-depth interviews with 37 returned migrants. The discussion of the research design and data acquisition is detailed and quite specific about how the authors and research associates confronted the various challenges they faced. The migration destinations chosen for study were authoritarian (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates), democratic (Japan and Taiwan), and one case in its own category (Hong Kong— which is not a democracy but allows significant labor rights, freedom of association, the right to protest, and other civil liberties to migrants and citizens). Unfortunately, there were not enough return migrants from the European Union (n = 50) to draw robust conclusions. Beyond the value of the research findings themselves, this portion of the book will be of use to scholars planning similar research. Before conducting the research, Kessler and Rother hypothesized that return migrants who spent time in democratic countries would be more likely to endorse democratic values and that migrants who spent time in authoritarian countries would be more likely to endorse authoritarian values. The hypotheses were qualified to recognize that direct experience or restriction of a migrant’s democracy/liberty might strengthen or weaken these effects. The results of their surveys and interviews did not support these straightforward expectations but did yield very interesting results nonetheless. In general, migrants did not show significant changes in their attitudes toward democracy/authoritarianism because of exposure to particular systems of government, though the small number of respondents who had returned from the European Union did exhibit strong democratic values. However, through a careful analysis of both the surveys and in-depth interviews Kessler and Rother demonstrate that migrants’ individual experiences can have