From philanthropy to impact investing

The case of Luxembourg

in Regions and Cohesion

Abstract

This article analyzes diaspora philanthropy by Filipino migrants in Luxembourg. It shows the evolution of migrant organizations’ established philanthropic practices as reflected in the history and profile of Filipino immigration to Luxembourg. Recently, however, direct remittances have been challenged by the philanthro-capitalist orientation of Meso Impact Finance, securing capital investment for small enterprises. Luxembourg’s impact investing in the Philippines is a result of intersecting social forces: dominance of migration-development discourse, ideological appeal of philanthro-capitalism, strong financial institutions in Luxembourg, and the tight-knit Filipino community. However, traditional philanthropy remains popular despite the undermining of direct, non-profit remittances of migrants as shortsighted, unsustainable development tool. It remains to be seen whether Meso Impact Finance will gain a stronger hold in the market and replace direct philanthropic remittances.

For Filipino migrants, keeping transnational relationships alive is important and an integral part of their material and social lives in the host country. Migration as an industry that includes financial and communication services, trading and commercial goods, and entertainment, to mention a few, has shaped the performance of transnationalism in a way that benefits both migrants and the country of origin. One phenomenon that is central to transnational exchange is that of diaspora giving—an activity that has economic, social, and cultural consequences to migrants, recipients, and intermediaries. There is a deeply entrenched tradition of philanthropic giving in Filipino culture, so the concept of migrants extending help to the Philippines is key to Filipino diaspora identity. Called bayanihan—the selfless contribution to help in the spirit of belonging to one’s community—this collective behaviour is oft-cited by the state to encourage transfers and is also the reason philanthropic giving among migrants is strong. Calls of solidarity upon migrants to shore up ailing economies of sending countries are frequently tied to the seemingly undissolved, emotional bond between migrants and the homeland. Not singularly observable among Filipino migrants, encouraging migrants to save and give is now central to the governance of international migration in order to harness the wealth created by people on the move.

Recent developments in migration governance strategies have outlined vigorous campaigns to promote diaspora giving (Dixon & Virani, 2015). Diaspora philanthropy, the transfer of resources of migrant communities to the country of origin, is articulated as civic or public responsibility in this age of migration (Johnson, 2007, p. 5). Sometimes called homeland philanthropy, migrant philanthropy and transnational giving, diaspora philanthropy is poised to contribute to the development of sending countries. Although diaspora philanthropy has always been a key aspect of migrant socio-cultural life (Werbner, 2002), the introduction of the term by migration managers has changed the conceptual understanding of philanthropy by migrants from charity to a development tool. However, while philanthropy by migrants has been lauded and received attention, the global governance of migration pushes for the cultivation of entrepreneurialism and investment, which is markedly distinct from giving. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Migration Policy Institute outline the benefits host countries and its migrants stand to gain if the diaspora made investments that have impact on development (Newland & Tanaka, 2010). Packaged for the national development of sending countries, the campaign has been promoted by international organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the World Bank, the United Nations High Level Dialogue on Migration and the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), to mention a few. The pivot towards a “migranticisation of development”, a term I coined to summarize the phenomenon, is evident in the programs instituted by Philippines’ migration agencies to create policies coherent with international directives and to spur diaspora communities to support this agenda (Espinosa. 2015).

I will explore the history of this “migraticisation of development” as experienced by Philippines-born migrants in Luxembourg. This article traces the growth of Filipino migrant community in one of the wealthiest countries in Europe and its encounter with the changing political and economic landscapes of diaspora giving, first as a philanthropic exercise then as an investment opportunity. I interrogate the relationships between the broader discourses of development, of migration’s links to development, and Filipino responses to calls of solidarity. With approximately ten million Philippines-born migrants either permanently settled or temporarily working in 190 countries (Commission on Filipinos Overseas, 2013), a call for solidarity to become “enablers of development” through giving is potentially a promise worth making. In particular, I present the specificities of Luxembourg and how its economic strengths as a financial hub in Western Europe shape the philanthropic and investment potential of Filipino migrants who settled in the country. The strong financial and economic status of Luxembourg provides an example of new migration-related investment opportunities despite the relatively new and still-evolving Philippines–Luxembourg bilateral relations.

Methodology and research design

The research is designed along two objectives: (1) to present fresh ethnographic data on Filipino migrants in Luxembourg and (2) to provide critical analyses on the evolving financialization of diaspora philanthropy. It will contribute to the ever-growing literature on migration and development field more generally, but it will shed light on the newest instruments devised to promote capital investment within the framework of migration and development. Meso Impact Finance, recently renamed as Backbone, a Luxembourg-based investment company, is the case study used to showcase the intersections between international migration and emerging financial instruments promoted by international agencies such as the World Bank. The institutionalization of impact investing in Luxembourg in the name of development, specially designed to tap the established Filipino migrant community in Luxembourg, is coherent with the broader goals by which migration-development governance is pursued. However, this article also questions the sustainability and claims of social justice by which Meso Impact Finance heralds its innovation. This study is significant because it is the first scholarly examination of the Philippines-born community in Luxembourg,1 and more specifically, it is research conducted to understand non-state philanthropy conducted in Luxembourg as an Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development (OECD) Member country. The article likewise highlights how broader patterns in the global governance of migration encapsulated in the linking of migration and impact investing are reflected in Luxembourg’s economic and social landscapes, largely hinged on the banking industry. Luxembourg is a critical example of diaspora philanthropy that is slowly but surely being challenged by impact investing. Finally, the study uniquely contributes to the body of scholarly work under Luxembourgish Studies on a topic—non-European (Asian) migration to Luxembourg—that is an unexplored territory.

The research reported in this article draws on a larger project funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg and the University of Luxembourg on the operations of diaspora giving as a strategy of a migration-development nexus in three European countries: Luxembourg, Germany and France. As multi-sited comparative research, the article interrogates Filipino migration’s specificities to identify the elements that advance the best practices in giving and how these are related to particular characteristics of Filipino migrants in each of these countries. I will present in this article observations that are only concerned with Luxembourg. Data collection took place in Luxembourg between July 2013 and December 2014 and consisted of 16 semi-structured interviews with participants who were identified as the pioneers of Filipino community in Luxembourg and also diplomatic officers who are involved with migrant affairs. Members of Philippine-Luxembourg Society (PLS), Samahan ng mga Pilipino sa Luxembourg (SPL), and Lëtzebuergesch-Philippinesch Aktion fir den Development (LPAD) were asked to participate. Only four interviewees were males (two were Luxembourgish), and the rest were Filipino women, a symptom of the feminized character of Philippines-born migration to Luxembourg. The participants arrived in Luxembourg between the late 1970s and the 1990s and represented varying occupations, age groups, and social classes. All interviews were conducted in person, apart from the one telephone interview with Luxembourg’s Honorary Consul to the Philippines, and all were recorded with the interviewee’s permission.

I obtained further data through participant observation at Filipino community gatherings. There were many occasions where I attended events, formal and informal, to witness fundraising activities geared towards philanthropic work as well as seminars and assemblies of these organizations. Sometimes a donor to fundraising dinners, sometimes helping behind the scenes, I was able to reflect more on what interviewees meant when I witnessed firsthand the work involved in their conduct of diaspora giving. In particular, I participated for two consecutive years in the Bazaar International de Luxembourg Expo, a 55-year fundraising tradition under the patronage of the Grande-Duchesse to help the Philippines’ stand. I attended seminars on impact investing organized by international banking representatives based in Luxembourg catered to bankers and another tailored to tap the Filipino diaspora. Moreover, my residency in Luxembourg had been extremely helpful to follow up on the philanthropic responses by the Filipino and Luxembourgish communities to the destructive typhoon Haiyan in central Philippines in November 2013. I personally saw that the effectiveness of community action is not only about political solidarity but also about a positive consequence of the way migrants organize themselves. Participant observation was an effective complimentary tool that brought out nuances of Filipino diaspora giving, which at times are not explicitly expressed in interviews.

Philanthropy and impact investing in the migration-development framework

Human mobility is very much part of 21st century social and economic realities. Migrant communities are claimed to take development initiatives to a new direction as designed by migration-related international bodies and policy-making institutes (Agunias & Newland, 2012). A migration-development nexus is the concerted effort of migration managers at the global level to optimize migrations and mobilities; in effect, to reduce the inequalities between the sending countries and destination countries (Van Hear & Sørensen, 2003). The proponents of the migration and development nexus have good reason to make these connections.

First, migration in development veers away from the exclusion and passivity that characterize development thinking, cited as one of the causes of its failure to bring changes in the developing world (Bakewell, 2007; De Haas, 2007). The sedentarism of development theory is now replaced by the buzzword of migration where movement of peoples is the engine of change, possibly more effective than official development aid (De Haas, 2007). Monetary and social remittances to sending countries invite perceptions that positive development may take form through the efforts of migrants. Second, states and migration-related institutions—not infrequently—invoke and exploit patriotic feelings of migrants: flexible yet enduring. The private remittance and philanthropic corridors are open to fill in the gaps that the project of development has not yet delivered. Third, the optimization of migration as a development tool is evident due its low overhead costs and fewer bureaucratic impediments compared to official development aid. These resources are not funnelled back to the developed world through technical assistance costs and consultancy fees (Easterly, 2014). Fourth, the coupling of migration and development presents a broad conceptual shift and effective policy campaigns that promise a trickledown effect. A migration and development nexus is hope reinvented in the face of social inequalities. Therefore, harnessing private migrant earnings into development-related investments carries much symbolic value.

International migration and its consequences is the next frontier of development, the “Plan B” to development aid (Kapur & McHale, 2006). The volume of remittances ballooning in the last 20 years has attracted the attention of economic managers to the potential of migrant wealth to become instruments of development. Remittances to developing countries reached up to $440 billion in 2015 and $429 billion in 2016 (World Bank, 2017). These figures recorded a decline in remittances in two consecutive years but still larger than official development aid (ODA) and more stable than private capital flow (World Bank, 2017). The billions of dollars, however, are spent on consumption expenses and value-added products from the West. Despite the overwhelming attention given to the volume of transferred resources, the connection between direct remittances (and labor migration) and long-term development is less evident than immediate improvement of living conditions of the recipients and money transfers. While the money sent by emigrants mitigates deprivation, it does not necessarily translate to structural changes. In fact, remittances have an inflationary effect and increase domestic demands that might not be met by the market and might lead to an increase of imports and trade balance deficits (Straubhaar & Vadean, 2005, p. 26). Moreover, because emigrants are often not from the poorest section of the country, this creates a gap of income inequality that may increase over time, deepening class stratification in a developing nation. Despite the popular consensus that unless remittances are turned into investment, they should never replace sound macroeconomic policies, the ruling discourse today points to celebrating mobility for the wealth it has created.

Apart from private remittances, public giving coursed through private foundations, public charities and international intermediaries (Lethlean, 2003) have been poised to be “good news for the poor” (Opiniano, 2005). It is a gifting complicated by the framework of development that filters the uniqueness of this giving. A “love” conditioned by the specificities of migration history and notions of citizenship, diaspora philanthropy is one’s love of homeland. Philanthropy by migrants is more than a source of financial support; it is a remittance of a social kind (Levitt, 1998). A cultural understanding of diaspora philanthropy is crucial in its exploitation as a development tool and as an expression of identity. Werbner claims that philanthropic activity is a key feature of disporic responsibility (2002) that somewhat dovetails with and fulfills migrants’ need to make sense of their position as transnational subjects. One of the reasons migrants are tapped to be the new darlings of the development narrative is the pull of nationalist affect of citizens in exile. The strong fervor, especially of first-generation migrants, to express identity and to seek belonging often finds expression in giving back home. Often, migrants are treated as a bottomless source of generosity that sending states turn to for support during calamities and times of great need. Moreover, transnational giving is seen to be self-replenishing. Although “donor fatigue” in traditional development aid may threaten the flow of resources, in diaspora philanthropy there will always be a new set of arrivals who will find comfort in giving back to the homeland they recently left. By turning to migrants as philanthropists or, even better, as development workers, there is a delegation of responsibility of development work to the group of people who, rather paradoxically, left their countries to seek economic opportunities as a result of the failure of development. These incomplete persons, in turn, are completed by their new subjectivities as philanthropists (Werbner, 1990, p. 203).

However, Filipino diaspora philanthropy did not emerge out of the drawing board of international migration specialists. There had been strong grassroots practices that inspired the systematisation of the scheme. The Philippines’ state agency, Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO), devised the program Lingkod sa Kapwa Pilipino (Service to Fellow Filipinos) (LINKAPIL), which began in 1989 and has since coursed through PhP2.54 billion of philanthropic transfers to an estimated 14.8 million Filipinos in the year 2014 (CFO, 2014). Moreover, within the global Philippine diaspora community, there has been a considerable synergy between philanthropy with a corporate model as practiced by foundations and investing as a means to a philanthropic end. Two examples of such foundations drawing financial and human resources from Philippines-born migrants are the Ayala Foundation and Gawad Kalinga (Give Care). The Philippine Development Foundation (formerly known as Ayala Foundation USA), a private organization established by Manila-based Ayala Corporation, “the largest conglomerate in the Philippines,” has an arm in the United States that has operated since 2000 (Garchitorena, 2007, p. 16). As it can operate freely in the Philippines, the US branch is a “bridge of hope across the seas” that oversees donations from Filipino Americans for poverty-reduction programs without the need to liaise with the Philippine government (Garchitorena, 2007, 16). From 2002 to 2010, the Philippine Development Foundation facilitated the transfer of nine million US dollars in cash and in-kind donations from Filipino Americans to the Philippines. Another is the Gawad Kalinga, a global corporation that started as a house-building project for the slum-dwelling Filipinos and now has an active presence in Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom through Filipino migrants. Gaining massive support from financiers and volunteers, the project founded by Antonio Meloto in 1995 has expanded in Indonesia, Cambodia and Papua New Guinea. In early 2015, the Aspen Institute’s Diaspora Investment Alliance (DIA) and the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) launched the Philippine Philanthropic Fund (PPF) as an example of donor-advised fund (DAF) that diaspora philanthropy continues to grow and evolve.

These Philippines-based global foundations are symptoms of the flow of resources across national boundaries but also the geopolitics of wealth. The rise in the number of big foundations in recent time attests to affluence in the West where organizations are based. “Impact investing”, at times called “social entrepreneurship”, is a philanthropic-oriented business model that builds on making a difference. It pursues profit for the development of communities or vice versa, depending on who is talking. Impact investing is another term for “philanthro-capitalism” wherein what works for the market should also work for civic endeavours (Bishop & Green, 2008). This way of perceiving the phenomenon—which has seduced celebrity/capitalists like Bill Gates, Bono, Bill Clinton, and recently Mark Zuckerberg, to mention some—promotes the market in solving poverty and social ills. Another way to see it is that philanthropic acts reinforce capitalism is a liberal hegemon through market-led development (Morvaridi, 2012). Negotiating between profit maximization and redressing inequalities implies both a reduction of state responsibility and delegation of power to non-state actors such as investors and migrants (McGoey, 2014). By engaging entrepreneurial individuals to become social investors, citizens are invited to positively participate in do-gooding without finding contradictions between the operations of the market responsible and addressing social injustice. Janice Peck (2013) captures this phenomenon with her analysis of the “Oprah effect” as “the ideological work of neoliberalism” wherein a combination of positive thinking, generosity and hard work from stakeholders would do wonders for a better world.

Banks, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international organizations are drawn towards philanthro-capitalistic foundations as an avenue to authorize influence, wield power and control money as socially constructive tools; profit-making as necessary to do good. These multilevel, transnational partnerships are to be considered an approach to development bypassing nation-state cooperation by directly dealing with social injustice. In the face of the global failure of the development project and the spectacular endorsement of big foundations by international organizations, national governments, nongovernment groups, even by academia that receive private–public partnership grants, socially conscientious investing seems to be the most attractive form of activism these days.

As we shall see later, the phenomenon of impact investing intersects with the spectacular rise of a migration-development nexus that taps migrant communities to start investing in the homeland. While informal impact investing by migrants is nothing new, the case of Luxembourg shows how a country’s strong financial institutions expand into and appropriate a traditionally grassroots stronghold, such as microlending, and turn it into a more mainstream investment market. The following section exemplifies Philippines–Luxembourg bilateral relations where a wealthy European country is poised to influence, if not altogether change, Filipino diaspora’s philanthropic practices. Is impact investing really the future that will weaken personal remittances and traditional philanthropic giving as Meso Impact Finance envisioned?

Results and discussion

Luxembourg and the birth of a community

Luxembourg is a small country in the heart of Western Europe, straddling the Belgian, German and French borders. With only over half a million inhabitants, 45% are non-Luxembourg nationals who predominantly work for either the many European Union (EU) institutions or the big investment banks. Luxembourg has been described as a “success immigration story” for its highly cohesive and affluent society (Fetzer, 2011). There is a visible absence of ethnic concentration known in other immigration countries. The country is a multilingual, high-wage employment destination inviting a huge number of transfrontalières (daily cross-border workers) from France, Belgium and Germany. Due to Luxembourg’s steel industry led by Arbed (now Arcelor Mittal), it opened its doors to Portuguese and Italian migrants in the early 20th century. Today Luxembourg is also home to Filipino migrants. With a characteristically feminized migration, Philippines-born women started to arrive in the 1970s, including 23 who arrived before 1979.2 There are 787 Philippines-born migrants as of 1 February 2011 (Statistiques Luxembourg, 2014a). There are 498 Philippines-born residents in Luxembourg who no longer hold Filipino citizenship in the same year. These former nationals are mostly composed of Filipino women, who married EU citizens, and their children in the Philippines sponsored through family reunification visa.3 As of 1 January 2014, there were 324 “Filipino nationals” (Statistiques Luxembourg, 2014b). These 324 persons are a cohort of recently married Filipino women and their children, Filipinos who reside in another EU member-state working temporarily in Luxembourg, and a small group of young professionals. The majority of Filipino migrants are women (80%) and more than half (53%) are aged 35 to 60. 61% of them are married or in a partnership (Statistiques Luxembourg, 2014c). Filipinos in Luxembourg are pigeonholed in low-skilled employment: 30% works as fulltime household help (stay-in) while 38% are employed in establishments. On the other hand, only 47 (six percent) are chômeurs or receiving state unemployment benefits, while 128 (16%) of adults have never worked and reported no activity as of 1 February 2011 (Statistiques Luxembourg, 2014d). A sizeable 34% of Filipinos live in the inner city of Luxembourgville (Statistiques Luxembourg, 2014e).

Contact and experiences with Filipino migrants as a resident of Luxembourg confirm these statistical figures. Exchanges with migrants often yield the similar stories of migration. Either one gained residency as a partner of a non-Filipino national or a labor migrant doing domestic or care work whose sojourn started in another country in Europe or the Middle East. The website of the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines (2015) confirms that “many Filipinos are married to local Luxembourgish” and work “as private domestic helpers and service attendants”. These men and women often lack qualifications for mainstream employment. Luxembourg’s labor market is shaped around jobs related to banking, finance, investment, taxation and law and the EU bureaucracy. Moreover, for those who came with qualifications, migrants experience de-skilling, due to lack of linguistic competencies. In Luxembourg, people speak French, German and Luxembourgish. Thus, it is not uncommon that, despite decades of residency, Filipino migrants could only take up domestic or care work.

The migration flow of Filipinos to Luxembourg continues today despite the EU-wide tightening of migration corridors. Feminized migration of au pairs, carertakers and marriage migrants and the greater mobility of high-skilled professionals facilitated the arrival of more Filipinos in Luxembourg. The opening up of the European labor market in the most sought after industries of accountancy, auditing, and information technology has reinvigorated the profile of Filipinos so as to include younger and male professionals.4 The globalization of the labor market facilitated the continuing labor export migration from the Philippines. The internationalization of human resource for transnational companies like De Loitte, KPMG, Ernst and Young (as in the case of Luxembourg) is part of the global pattern of brain drain, national immigration policies, and selective migration schemes such as the EU Blue Card and point-system permanent migration. Also, Luxembourg’s national affairs such as the founding of its first university, University of Luxembourg, and the Fonds National de la Recherche (National Research Council) agenda opened opportunities Filipinos in the academe, a platform of migration that had not been possible earlier.5 In 2013, The Philippine Embassy in Brussels sent one of its consuls to the University of Luxembourg to inquire about the possibilities of receiving young Filipino scholars in its degree programs.6 At the time of writing, there had been no formal linkages between the two countries.

While comparatively younger than migration to the United States, for example, Filipinos in Luxembourg have organized themselves considerably well as a recognizable community in this multicultural, multilingual country. The de facto community is much larger than the 787 persons the STATEC indicates. This number does not include young people of Filipino ancestry born outside the Philippines and those born and raised in Luxembourg in bicultural households. Most of these young people express strong feelings of belonging to Filipino identity. Given that Filipinos arrived as marriage migrants who stayed at home and had time to organize social activities, their children and husbands are “captured participants” who performed as cultural ambassadors. Most Filipinos and their families are associated with one of the four organizations in Luxembourg. Philippine-Luxembourg Society (PLS, established in 1986), Samahan ng mga Pilipino sa Luxembourg (SPL, established in 1999), Lëtzebuergesch-Philippinesch Aktion fir den Development (LPAD, established in 2006), and Pilipinas Poverty Peace Education (PPPE, established in 2013). These groups are organized around distinct yet overlapping philanthropic visions whose formations were shaped partly by the different stages and milieu of the community’s migration history and partly by the politics that define the push and pull of organized efforts to do philanthropy or investment.

The four organizations mentioned reflect the history and membership of the Filipino diaspora. It was in 1986 when a small group of Luxembourgish nationals and Filipino women gathered together to form Philippine-Luxembourg Society (PLS), the oldest and the most well-connected to Luxembourg’s institutions, and not without reason, perceived as “class A” by outsiders.7 Even without the support of a big pool of members or an established network of transnational Filipino migrants at the time, the PLS jumped into the demanding work of diaspora philanthropy. The PLS has embarked to support a sizeable number of Filipino student scholars, transferring a considerable sum of philanthropic resource.8 The PLS’s scholarship fund for students from high school to university provides the much-needed help to study uninterruptedly, avoiding the trap students fall into if they are too poor to stay in school. The PLS hopes to contribute through this effort to the improvement of the human capital index of the Philippines. After 29 years under three leaderships (two Luxembourgish nationals and the current Filipina president), the PLS has represented the interests of, dominated philanthropic landscape in, and influenced public perception about Filipinos in Luxembourg. Like most migrant organizations that aspire to cultivate a bicultural heritage in their adoptive countries, the PLS hopes to foster cultural understanding in “promot(ing) friendship and cultural ties between the Philippines and Luxembourg” (Philippine-Luxembourg website). Many of their activities were cultural productions that overlap with charity work. From July 2013 to December 2014, I was participant-observer to numerous projects of the group such as fundraising concerts to sustain their account balance as a socio-philanthropic group. The PLS once again enjoys the status of an NGO in Luxembourg receiving state funds to sponsor its projects. It was stripped for some years so that the PLS relied on income-resource drives to continue their projects during this time. Moreover, the PLS somewhat lost the single-student sponsorship it used to enjoy in the past because of the presidency of two Luxembourgish nationals who were able to invite local contacts to sponsor scholars. The PLS experimented with different ways to raise funds through different routes and maneuver a slow shift from education to other projects, such as building classrooms, solar panel provision, and other initiatives.

The establishment of Samahan ng mga Pilipino sa Luxembourg (SPL) in 1999 marked a shift in the changing profile of Filipino migrants. From a small group of women in the more affluent class, the first recognizable “wave” happened in the 1980s and the 1990s when “Filipina [sic] entertainers came to Luxembourg to work in the bars” (Yaun, 2007, p. 241). Dennis Yaun further claims that the growth of the community was driven by chain migration initiated by marriage migrants who either introduced female members of their families to Luxembourgish nationals or sponsorship of their children from previous a marriage. SPL’s formation was key in the diversification of the community’s profile and somewhat a response to the exclusivity of PLS. SPL’s members are described as “masa” by its president, a reference to working class Filipinos.9 SPL started as a savings scheme support group of a handful of Filipino mostly women migrants, which has grown to a pool of 40 members. The scheme aimed to discipline its participants to put money aside every month to be retrieved later as a lump sum. One of the benefits of such a measure is to instil the value of saving among migrants who frequently send all of their income to the Philippines, at times falling into a cycle of debt. SPL’s members include what are named as “kudkod”, literally “to scrub”, people who do domestic work in private homes. It was practical to allow them to borrow money from the pool of funds in cases of emergency because their incomes are irregular.10 SPL, however, did not remain a self-help savings group. It explored other avenues of activities where members bond through socio-cultural activities. The president of SPL is proud to note that it had supported the Bantay Bata (Safeguard the Children) Project and fundraising drives for the victims of natural catastrophes in the Philippines.11

The migration-development turn

The migration and development nexus had been on the agenda of some Filipino migration-based initiatives such as Economic Resource Center for Overseas Filipinos (ERCOF) for some time. ERCOF collaborates with Filipino migrant organizations to specialize on setting up businesses and education programs aiming to encourage migrants to become investors. But only recently did it finally reach the migrants “on the ground” in Luxembourg. The harnessing of these transnational initiatives is articulated by a group of Filipinos in Luxembourg that do not share the philanthropic vision of either PLS or SPL. “The focus will be ‘investments’ not ‘donations’” (LPAD, 2014). This is the clear admonition of Lëtzebuergesch-Philippinesch Aktion fir den Development (LPAD), the third Filipino organization to be formed in Luxembourg. It is a “solidarity association” that will stimulate “interest among Filipinos and Europeans to invest in the development of the Philippines mainly in microfinance, cooperative and micro enterprises” (LPAD, 2014). LPAD promises to promote entrepreneurship, thus, spurring job creation. Although LPAD organizes events such as bike rides, karaoke, spaghetti dinners, and bus trips, similar to what PLS and SPL do, it distinguishes itself from others claiming that it introduces a scientific and progressive approach to the problem of Philippines’ underdevelopment. It offers “technical training” and theory along the lines pursued by development NGOs since a few of its founding members had been NGO workers.12 LPAD offers in financing projects for the rural poor the promise to alleviate unemployment and use the untapped human resource in the countryside. Two of LPAD’s ventures involved 50 households to receive solar generators to increase the quality and quantity of organic farmers, and a reforestation program of 21-hectare mangrove ecosystems in Pangil Bay, Lanao province in Mindanao, southern Philippines, both of which were funded by Luxembourg Ministry of Cooperation and the NGO Wega. The leaders of LPAD claimed that almost 800,000 to one million euros in funds had been dispensed, where “approximately two-thirds” of the funds provided by “foreign governments”.13

So far, diaspora philanthropy and development projects in Luxembourg have been singularly not for profit. This includes the projects of Life Project 4 Youth, a non-Filipino, Luxembourg-based initiative, recently received NGO status, that has been helping provide social and professional integration of troubled or impoverished youths since 2009. However, in 2012, when Meso Impact Finance as a ‘”small enterprise financing intermediaries in emerging economies” was launched in Luxembourg, the corporatised, for profit giving began (Meso Impact Finance 2014). “The first of its kind in Luxembourg that deals in ‘real’ economy as opposed to speculative…finally, something is being done for the Philippines by foreigners,”14 one Meso Impact Finance associate announced to a mostly Filipino audience during its 12 December 2014 launch in Luxembourg. With the purpose of providing basic financial services to underserviced people engaging in small-scale businesses in the Philippines, the company aims to lend capital to Filipinos who otherwise do not have access to credit for a variety of reasons, such as strict bank requirements or simply the limited capital of rural banks. Meso Impact Finance, in their words, hopes to “raise opportunities of long term value creation…through innovative investment services” (Meso Impact Finance 2014). “Value creation” refers to sustainable and inclusive businesses that are environmentally conscious and create impact to the development of the Philippines. Thus, the company hired Dennis Yaun, one of the leaders of LPAD and a Filipino migrant in Luxembourg, for his “extensive network and knowledge” of development and migration issues that involve Filipino migrants (Meso Impact Finance, 2014). He was introduced as the “conscience” of Meso Impact Finance during the “Filipino launch” (as opposed to the Luxembourgish/bankers launch set in another venue and another date) of the company.15 Yaun’s experience in development work with the previously mentioned migration-development group Economic Resource Center for Overseas Filipinos (ERCOF) is strategic for the new Luxembourgish-financed investment company. He presented the “Filipino face” of the company.

There had been recent developments in the operations of what was formerly known as Meso Impact Finance, renamed Backbone “to provide expertise to impact investment vehicules that target the SME segment” (www.backbone.eu.com). Backbone uses a “proven in-house methodology” that includes a scoring system to assess the feasibility of projects to be funded and also a “monitoring toolbox” to follow up on the progress of the project. While there are certain changes within the organization, such as the hiring of a new Filipino and Peruvian business advisors and the publicly accessible profile of its shareholders, the vision and mission guiding Meso Impact Finance/Backbone remains similar. There are, however, no projects in any country detailed in Backbone’s website. I continue to refer to what is now Backbone as Meso Impact Finance, the name for which it was known during the time of my fieldwork.

Meso Impact Finance’s operations are inspired by an ERCOF-pioneered a program whereby overseas Filipinos pool their savings together and invest them in microfinance in rural Philippines. Time deposits are locked in for one year and interest rates range from 8.5 to 10%. In 2004, migrants from Luxembourg and the Netherlands deposited €6,900 in the rural banks in Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental (Schüttler, 2008, p. 17). Migrants requested for the expansion of participating rural banks that ERCOF made possible. However, the scheme did not spread widely among Filipino migrants because of the closures of rural banks. Professionalism and safety of deposits are a must in the success of this scheme (Schüttler, 2008, p. 19). This is where the banking savvy of Meso Impact Finance comes in.

There are reasons why a migrant grassroots investment scheme could go wrong. One of which is that migrants as investors need to efficiently conduct their affairs as social obligations to friends and family (to give them jobs and social prestige) and as financial ventures as profit-seeking investors. It is imperative that investments of migrants be safeguarded to make profit and also for the livelihood projects to continue to be sustainable for the stakeholders. This is how Meso Impact Finance’s professionalisation of impact investing comes in. The managers of Luxembourg-based Meso Impact Finance with backgrounds in banking are responsible for ensuring the investment company runs like a business. Conducting in-depth project analysis and risk management audit, the team admits that they are strict about project monitoring with annual audit and internal control. “We are investors, we behave like bankers!”16 The company already has a five million-Euro fund commitment from its Luxembourg-based investors. One project that is now enjoying an investment capital of 100,000 to 2.5 million Php from Meso Impact Finance is Negosyong Pinoy (Filipino Business), a small-scale business. The company is now in the process of expanding in the Philippines with the goal of securing a judicial personality in the country of operation. This is to facilitate processes because having Philippine nationals as business partners is assumed to make business transactions faster and less “red tape”. However, it is primarily presented as a Luxembourgish entity “that will stay in Luxembourg” to assure investors that “they will invest in a Luxembourgish company” and not a Filipino one. The mechanisms and safety guarantee built around Meso Impact Finance—a mark of Luxembourgish banking expertise—is an assurance of its money-making orientation. True to the nature of financial institutions and of philanthro-capitalism more broadly, the case of Meso Impact Finance in Luxembourg is about creating profit.

Nevertheless, the “conscience” part or “impact” of the entire project is most apparent in three ways, at least based on claims made during the presentations in 2014. First, as in the case of Negosyong Pinoy being funded by Meso Impact Finance, Yaun claimed that it has given jobs to locals, hired female workers, and helped these people get out of the informal sector (generally understood as unregistered and untaxed income-generating activities, which is common in developing nations). Second, there is a clause that 10% of funded entities’ income goes to “development projects for the poor”. The details of which kind of “development project”, who decides and who constitutes “the poor” are not revealed. The third and the most interesting and clearly delineated part of the do-gooding of Meso Impact Finance involves Filipino migrants and migration-related industries that prop up the conduits of transnational relations and processes. It is the objective of the company to turn Filipino migrants into impact investors with Meso Impact Finance as vehicle. Yaun explained that it is Meso Impact Finance’s goal to “stop the cycle of migration” from the Philippines by creating jobs so that people do not leave their communities. He espoused the belief that development in the sending country militates against mass migration. If people were given incentives to stay, they would rather not migrate. Thus, Yaun encouraged his Filipino-Luxembourgish community to save and to invest. Instead of sending remittances over an infinite number of years to an extended family network, mostly spent on basic expenses and consumer goods, Filipinos are told to become wise investors. Yaun also warns against the pattern of chain migration where relatives are sponsored to come over. They have few qualifications or no linguistic competence to suit the destination’s labor market and are confronted by unemployment and eventually fall into low-paid, difficult jobs.

What Meso Impact Finance does not include in their formula is that for a Filipino migrant to turn into an investor is no easy task. Meso Impact Finance accepts a minimum of €125,000 per private investor,17 a huge sum of money for a community of marriage migrants and domestic workers. The possibility of pooling together several people under one unit of investment is unfortunately not available. This is an arrangement that may suit a handful of professionals, so that Meso Impact Finance promised to make further investigations on this. Filipino migrants could eventually influence their partners to invest, but its success is speculative at the time of writing. Indeed, one Filipino woman I spoke to during the “Filipino launch” said that her husband is not interested in investing. Luxembourg’s impact investing company’s €125,000 is a far cry from the €6,900 euros that Filipino migrants invested collectively via ERCOF. Nevertheless, the company’s vision to “develop the Philippines”, “help the poor” and “give jobs” through Luxembourgish impact investing is, to say the least, laudable for the claims they make.

More than a year before Meso Impact Finance organized these seminars, I conducted a telephone interview with the Consul General of Luxembourg to the Philippines who informed me that the Luxembourgish government was at the time investigating microfinance and interest rates in the Philippines.18 This is welcome news, also a groundbreaking effort, since the Philippines has not established much contact with the Luxembourg state on a bilateral level. The Consul General, who is affiliated with Ernst and Young in Luxembourg, is more than happy to see these developments between the two countries. Luxembourg is in a position to take advantage of the Philippines in dire need of foreign capital. More so, Luxembourgish entities may benefit from the small yet close-knit presence of Filipino migrants in the country. A casual exchange with a Luxembourgish national supporting Meso Impact Finance during the “Luxembourgish launch”, I concluded that the decision to start impact investing in the Philippines is not singularly due to the good climate for microfinancing in the country compared to other developing countries.19 The general shift to SMEs and impact investing certainly triggered Meso Impact Finance’s initiative. More importantly, Luxembourg as a banking powerhouse has now ventured into microfinance through Luxembourg Microfinance and Development Fund. It claims to have dispensed €21.9 million of loans, in 20 countries, with 42 projects financed and 78% of women participation (Luxembourg Microfinance and Development Fund, 2017). Luxembourg’s claim to responsible investment echoes the goals similar to Meso Impact Finance, namely women empowerment, environmental and social protection, poverty eradication, sustainability, to mention a few, and if I may add the core of the migration-development nexus, for labor migration to stop and locals to stay in the countries they live in. What is rather apparent here without openly discussing the precise connection is the link between development and migration and what is at stake for Europe in strengthening its microfinance financial institutions.

Meso Impact Finance’s attempt to refashion remittance-sending Filipino migrants into “Luxembourgish investors” is, to say the least, a worthwhile experiment on the exercise of global citizenship. However, the project is very challenging given the profile of Filipino migrants in Luxembourg. Although there are Filipino women who are married to men of means, it is ultimately not the women migrants who are empowered in this scenario. Neither would it be easy to convince Filipino migrants to stop sending money to their families. The difficulty in the original scheme of Meso Impact Finance to include the Filipino migrant community is evident in their very absence in its reincarnation as Backbone. The problem with Meso Impact Finance’s self-representation as an investment model of conjoining migration and development are three-fold.

First, its premise is grounded on a rather stereotypical formula of lifting people out of the informal sector to work in small-scale businesses dependent on foreign capital constitute “development”. The survival of sustainable small-scale livelihood projects is not guaranteed by social investments that are ultimately designed to look after its moneyed shareholders first and maybe provide some benefits for Filipinos who could draw some income from such jobs. Critical studies on philanthro-capitalism, impact investing, and similar profit-oriented do-gooding, have much to say about the neoliberal orientation behind them (McGoey, 2014; Morvaridi, 2012). Impact investing has very little impact compared to the havoc of a financial system that Luxembourg’s banking industry thrives on. One is tempted to consider Meso Impact Finance as another pet project of the moneyed elite and call it “social responsibility”.

Second, the unsupported, reductive idea that a local community’s development stops migration is a claim contradicted by migration theorists (Bakewell, 2007). Notions like this are often supported by those whose interests are circumscribed by the idea that development is rooted in place and that migration is only a secondary option. Homeland security, border control, anti-immigration, and nationalist projects are issues that come handy in championing in-place development. Claims by Meso Impact Finance that impact investing will stop the cycle of migration presumes that peoples’ motivation to migrate is only about economic gain. Also, it presumes that if Filipinos do a little better at home, they would not leave home for more. If there is one lesson that the would-be Filipino investors in Luxembourg could teach to Filipinos back home is that migration pays.

Third, Meso Impact Finance is a fine example of a migration-development nexus project that is feasible and profitable due to the existing migration industry. Take, for instance, the company’s plans to expand its operations through remittance transfer services and banking and credit services targeting migrants in Europe and their family members. The call to stop the cycle of migration is lip service, to say the least. Meso Impact Finance will yet be another elaborate and profitable business piggybacking on a migration-related industry, feeding off dependence on hard-earned migrant income, and therefore tacitly supporting existing migration regime.

Conclusions

The broader themes of international migration and development, in particular, of the trajectory of diaspora philanthropy that has given way to impact investing, are compellingly demonstrated by Filipino migrant organizations’ initiatives in Luxembourg. Since the 1980s, Filipinos in Luxembourg have personally benefitted in the wealth of the country where they settled and as Filipinos in diaspora who maintains a philanthropic relationship transnationally. Part of the successes of the Philippine-Luxembourg Society is due to the generosity of Luxembourgish nationals who have supported the group’s scholarship program and its other efforts. This is not surprising given that as an OECD country, Luxembourg is a top source of official development aid. In addition, Luxembourg is home to NGOs that have ongoing projects in the Philippines. However, the arrival of more migrants and diversification of its profile have also influenced the community to form groups that pursued different objectives. These groups reflect not only their philanthropic concerns but also the international developments in the discourse of migration and development. What needs to be stressed, however, is that the phenomenon of impact investing is conditioned by Luxembourg’s unique position as a source of investment funds. Luxembourg is conducive to the easy facilitation in erecting financial institutions like Meso Impact Finance because of its small size, highly organized state and private partnerships and a powerful elite. However, whether it is a real diaspora impact investing—for and by migrants—remains to be seen.

The formal incursion of Luxembourgish capital into the Philippines reveals the dynamics between the characteristics of the destination country and the passive position occupied by Filipinos in Meso Impact Finance. Acted upon, target of help, agenda to be resolved, the Philippines and the would-be, if at all, Filipino migrant-investors are in the general scheme of the philanthro-capitalism. What is foreseeable is that ordinary Filipinos in Luxembourg will continue their social activities in the name philanthropy. The karaoke contests and dinner galas as connective activities will go on, and impact investing will serve the interest of its shareholders in Luxembourg. It is very likely that this phenomenon will turn certain “elite” and useful migrants into second-tier investment partners. Lastly, this may deepen fissures that divide those who have and those who do not among Filipino migrants in Luxembourg.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Harlan Koff for comments on the draft and the Filipino community in Luxembourg. This research was supported by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg.

NOTES
1

A short piece, “Philippine Migration to Luxembourg” was written by Dennis Nonato Yaun (2007) as his contribution to the collection In De Olde Worlde: Views of Filipino Migrants in Europe. The content of his work, however, is mostly anecdotal rather than scientific.

2

Interviews with Filipinos in Luxembourg confirmed that the first Filipino who ever settled in Luxembourg was a woman named M. B., now residing in the United States. She came to Luxembourg as a wife to an American businessman and brought with her a domestic aid named C. She was then followed by a few former stewardesses who married foreign nationals working in Luxembourg. These women I have met personally during fieldwork.

3

I observed this during my two-year fieldwork in Luxembourg where I spent many hours socialising with the members of the community. STATEC Luxembourg does not include details on immigration statuses of Filipinos. However, my Filipino and Luxembourgish interviewees acknowledge and confirm this observation.

4

Interview. J. T. (14 August 2013).

5

As far as I know, at the time of writing, I am the first and only Filipino scholar who was working at the University of Luxembourg.

6

Interview. C.R. (3 September 2013).

7

The perception that PLS is “class A” is prevalent among Filipinos I spoke with who socialise in a Filipino bar situated near the central station. Most of them are women who work as maids and nannies. PLS women are generally considered as “may pera” (moneyed) due to the social class of their husbands.

8

My interviews with a former and current president of PLS reveal that the group has not kept a complete file of its books over the years due to a not so smooth transition in leadership changes Interviews. C. H. and A. M. (29 July 2013).

9

Interview. G.M. and B. R. (20 August 2013).

10

Interview. G.M. and B. R. (20 August 2013).

11

Interview. G.M. and B. R. (20 August 2013).

12

Interview. D.S. and E. F. (9 August 2013).

13

Interview. D.S. and E. F. (9 August 2013).

14

This statement is not exactly correct even if only in the context of Luxembourg. The Life Project 4 Youth and Action Solidarité Tiers Monde, NGOs based in Luxembourg, have been working with communities and groups in the Philippines many years before Meso Impact Finance was launched.

15

Meso Impact Finance presentations on 4 December 2014 in the city of Luxembourg city and on 12 December 2014 in Findel.

16

Michel Vandevoir, during the conference ‘SME Financing and other Financial Services in Emerging Markets’, 4 December 2014, city of Luxembourg.

17

Michel Vandevoir, Q and A, during the conference with Filipinos, 12 December 2014, Ibis Hotel, Findel.

18

Interview. A. K. (November 2014).

19

During the conference ‘SME Financing and other Financial Services in Emerging Markets’, 4 December 2014, city of Luxembourg.

REFERENCES

  • AguniasD. & NewlandK. (2012). Developing a road map for engaging diasporas in development: A handbook for policymakers and practitioners in home and host countries. IOM and Migration Policy Institute: Geneva.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BakewellO. (2007). Keeping them in their place: The ambivalent relationship between development and migration in Africa. Working Paper 8International Migration Institute, University of OxfordOxford.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BishopM. & GreenM. (2008). Philanthro-capitalism: How giving can save the world. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

  • Commision on Filipinos Overseas. (2013). Stock estimate of overseas Filipinos as of December 2013. Commission on Filipinos Overseas. Retrieved from http://www.cfo.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1340:stock-estimate-of-overseas-filipinos&catid=134:statisticsstock-estimate&Itemid=814

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commision on Filipinos Overseas. (2014). Diaspora to Development (D2D). Powerpoint presentation from CFO.

  • De HaasH. (2007). Turning the tide? Why development will not stop migration. Development and Change38(5) 819841.

  • DixonA. & ViraniP. (2015). How economic incentives can stimulate diaspora philanthropy. In People Move: A blog about migration remittances and development. The World Bank. Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/how-economic-incentives-can-stimulate-diaspora-philanthropy

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EasterlyW. (2014). The tyranny of experts: Economists dictators and the forgotten rights of the poor. New York: Basic Books.

  • Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines to the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Mission of the Philippines to the European Union. (2015). Filipinos in Luxembourg. Retrieved from http://philembassy.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=320&Itemid=210

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EspinosaS. (2015). Diaspora philanthropy: The making of a new development aid. Migration and DevelopmentDOI:10.1080/21632324.2015.1053305

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FetzerJ.S. (2011). Luxembourg as an immigration success story: The Grand Duchy in Pan-European Perspective. Lexington BooksLanham.

  • GarchitorenaV. (2007). Diaspora philanthropy: The Philippine experience. The Philanthropic Initiative and The Global Equity Initiative. Boston.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JohnsonP. (2007). Diaspora philanthropy: Influences initiatives and issues. The Philanthropic Initiative, The Global Equity Initiative, Harvard UniversityCambridge, Massachussetts. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/financial/charity/usa-diasporaphilanthropy.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KapurD. & McHaleJ. (2006). What is wrong with Plan B? International migration as an alternative to development assistance. Brookings Trade Forum Special Issue: Global Labor Markets137172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LethleanE. (2003). Diaspora: The new philanthropy? Working Paper. University of Technology QueenslandQueensland.

  • LPAD (Lëtzebuergesch-Philippinesch Aktion fir den Development). (2014). “Mission”. Retrieved from http://www.lpad.org.lu

  • LevittP. (1998). Social remittances: Migration driven local-level forms of cultural diffusion. International Migration Review32(4): 926948.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luxembourg Microfinance and Development Fund (2017). “Impact du LMDF.” Retrieved from https://www.lmdf.lu

  • McGoeyL. (2014). The philanthropic state: Market-state hybrids in the philanthrocapitalist turn. Third World Quarterly35(1): 109125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meso Impact Finance. (2014). “The company”. Retrieved from http://www.mesoimpactfinance.com/en/index.php

  • MorvaridiB. (2012). Capitalist philanthropy and hegemonic partnerships. Third World Quarterly33(7): 11911210.

  • NewlandK. & TanakaH. (2010). Mobilizing diaspora: Entrepreneurship for development. Migration Policy Institute & USAIDWashington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OpinianoJ. (2005). Good news for the poor: Diaspora philanthropy by Filipinos. Association of FoundationsQuezon City.

  • PeckJ. The “Oprah effect”: The ideological work of neoliberalism. In Gavin Fridell & Martjn Konings (Eds.) Age of icons: Exploring philanthrocapitalism in the contemporary world (pp. 5071). University of Toronto PressToronto, Canada.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchüttlerK. (2008). The contribution of migrant organisations to income-generating activities in their countries of origin. Working Paper No. 50. International Labor OfficeGeneva.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014a). Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 selon l’année d’arrivée file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014b). Population par nationalité (nationalités détaillées) file sent to author.

  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014c). Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 par âge et sexe file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014d). “Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 (situation par rapport à vie économique) file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014e). Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 par commune de résidence file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StraubhaarT. & VadeanF.P. (2005). International migrant remittances and their role in development. Migration, Remittances and Development, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentParis, France. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/mig/38840502.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van HearN. & SørensenN.N. (Eds.). (2003). Migration-development nexus. International Organization for MigrationGeneva.

  • WerbnerP. (2002). The place which is diaspora: Citizenship, religion and gender in the making of chaotic transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies28119134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WerbnerP. (1990). The migration process. BergNew York.

  • World Bank. (2017). Remittances to developing countries decline for second consecutive year. The World Bank Press Release April 21 2017. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/04/21/remittances-to-developing-countries-decline-for-second-consecutive-year

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • YaunD. N. (2007). Philippine migration to Luxembourg. In Filomenita Mongaya Hoegsholm (Ed.) In de olde worlde: Views of Filipino migrants in Europe (pp. 241242). Philippine Migration Research Network and Philippine Social Science.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

De la filantropía a la inversión de impacto: el caso de Luxemburgo

Shirlita Espinosa

Resumen: Este artículo analiza la filantropía de la diáspora realizada por inmigrantes filipinos en Luxemburgo. Usando métodos etnográficos se muestra la evolución de las prácticas filantrópicas establecidas por las organizaciones de migrantes y como éstas se reflejan en la historia y el perfil de la inmigración filipina a Luxemburgo. Recientemente, las remesas directas han sido cuestionadas por la orientación filantro-capitalista de meso impacto financiero, asegurando inversiones de capital para pequeñas empresas. No obstante, la filantropía tradicional sigue siendo popular a pesar del debilitamiento de las remesas directas y sin fines de lucro de los migrantes, como una herramienta de corta visión, insostenible e irracional. Queda por observarse si el meso impacto financiero obtendrá un mayor control en el mercado y reemplazará las remesas filantrópicas directas.

Palabras clave: capitalismo filantrópico, filantropía de la diáspora, inversión de impacto, Luxemburgo, migración filipina, nexo migración-desarrollo

De la philanthropie à l’investissement à impact social: le cas du Luxembourg

Shirlita Espinosa

Résumé: Cet article présente des données ethnographiques et des analyses critiques liées à la philanthropie de la diaspora philippine au Luxembourg. Il montre que l’évolution des organisations migrantes établit des pratiques philanthropiques comme le reflètent l’histoire et le profil de l’immigration philippine au Luxembourg. Récemment cependant les transferts d’argent directs ont été concurrencés par l’orientation philantrocapitalistique de la mésofinance à impact social qui sécurise l’investissement de capitaux pour les petites entreprises. Pourtant, malgré l’ébranlement des transferts d’argent directs et non-lucratifs des migrants comme outil de développement à court terme et non pérenne la philanthropie traditionnelle reste populaire. Il reste à voir si la mésofinance à impact social gagnera un ancrage plus fort sur les marchés et si elle remplacera les transferts d’argent philanthropiques directs.

Mots clés: investissements à impact social, lien entre migration et développement, Luxembourg, migration philippine, philantrocapitalisme, philantropie de la diaspora

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Contributor Notes

SHIRLITA ESPINOSA published her first book Sexualised Citizenship: A Cultural History of Philippines-Australia Migration in 2017 by Palgrave Macmillan UK. She has twenty years of teaching and research experiences in the Philippines, Australia and Luxembourg. E-mail: shirlita.espinosa@gmail.com

Regions and Cohesion

Regiones y Cohesión / Régions et Cohésion

  • AguniasD. & NewlandK. (2012). Developing a road map for engaging diasporas in development: A handbook for policymakers and practitioners in home and host countries. IOM and Migration Policy Institute: Geneva.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BakewellO. (2007). Keeping them in their place: The ambivalent relationship between development and migration in Africa. Working Paper 8International Migration Institute, University of OxfordOxford.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BishopM. & GreenM. (2008). Philanthro-capitalism: How giving can save the world. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

  • Commision on Filipinos Overseas. (2013). Stock estimate of overseas Filipinos as of December 2013. Commission on Filipinos Overseas. Retrieved from http://www.cfo.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1340:stock-estimate-of-overseas-filipinos&catid=134:statisticsstock-estimate&Itemid=814

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commision on Filipinos Overseas. (2014). Diaspora to Development (D2D). Powerpoint presentation from CFO.

  • De HaasH. (2007). Turning the tide? Why development will not stop migration. Development and Change38(5) 819841.

  • DixonA. & ViraniP. (2015). How economic incentives can stimulate diaspora philanthropy. In People Move: A blog about migration remittances and development. The World Bank. Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/how-economic-incentives-can-stimulate-diaspora-philanthropy

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EasterlyW. (2014). The tyranny of experts: Economists dictators and the forgotten rights of the poor. New York: Basic Books.

  • Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines to the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Mission of the Philippines to the European Union. (2015). Filipinos in Luxembourg. Retrieved from http://philembassy.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=320&Itemid=210

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EspinosaS. (2015). Diaspora philanthropy: The making of a new development aid. Migration and DevelopmentDOI:10.1080/21632324.2015.1053305

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FetzerJ.S. (2011). Luxembourg as an immigration success story: The Grand Duchy in Pan-European Perspective. Lexington BooksLanham.

  • GarchitorenaV. (2007). Diaspora philanthropy: The Philippine experience. The Philanthropic Initiative and The Global Equity Initiative. Boston.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JohnsonP. (2007). Diaspora philanthropy: Influences initiatives and issues. The Philanthropic Initiative, The Global Equity Initiative, Harvard UniversityCambridge, Massachussetts. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/financial/charity/usa-diasporaphilanthropy.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KapurD. & McHaleJ. (2006). What is wrong with Plan B? International migration as an alternative to development assistance. Brookings Trade Forum Special Issue: Global Labor Markets137172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LethleanE. (2003). Diaspora: The new philanthropy? Working Paper. University of Technology QueenslandQueensland.

  • LPAD (Lëtzebuergesch-Philippinesch Aktion fir den Development). (2014). “Mission”. Retrieved from http://www.lpad.org.lu

  • LevittP. (1998). Social remittances: Migration driven local-level forms of cultural diffusion. International Migration Review32(4): 926948.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luxembourg Microfinance and Development Fund (2017). “Impact du LMDF.” Retrieved from https://www.lmdf.lu

  • McGoeyL. (2014). The philanthropic state: Market-state hybrids in the philanthrocapitalist turn. Third World Quarterly35(1): 109125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meso Impact Finance. (2014). “The company”. Retrieved from http://www.mesoimpactfinance.com/en/index.php

  • MorvaridiB. (2012). Capitalist philanthropy and hegemonic partnerships. Third World Quarterly33(7): 11911210.

  • NewlandK. & TanakaH. (2010). Mobilizing diaspora: Entrepreneurship for development. Migration Policy Institute & USAIDWashington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OpinianoJ. (2005). Good news for the poor: Diaspora philanthropy by Filipinos. Association of FoundationsQuezon City.

  • PeckJ. The “Oprah effect”: The ideological work of neoliberalism. In Gavin Fridell & Martjn Konings (Eds.) Age of icons: Exploring philanthrocapitalism in the contemporary world (pp. 5071). University of Toronto PressToronto, Canada.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchüttlerK. (2008). The contribution of migrant organisations to income-generating activities in their countries of origin. Working Paper No. 50. International Labor OfficeGeneva.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014a). Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 selon l’année d’arrivée file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014b). Population par nationalité (nationalités détaillées) file sent to author.

  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014c). Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 par âge et sexe file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014d). “Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 (situation par rapport à vie économique) file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Statistiques Luxembourg (STATEC). (2014e). Nombre de personnes née de nationalité “Philippines” et résident au Luxembourg au 1er février 2011 par commune de résidence file sent to author.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StraubhaarT. & VadeanF.P. (2005). International migrant remittances and their role in development. Migration, Remittances and Development, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentParis, France. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/mig/38840502.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van HearN. & SørensenN.N. (Eds.). (2003). Migration-development nexus. International Organization for MigrationGeneva.

  • WerbnerP. (2002). The place which is diaspora: Citizenship, religion and gender in the making of chaotic transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies28119134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WerbnerP. (1990). The migration process. BergNew York.

  • World Bank. (2017). Remittances to developing countries decline for second consecutive year. The World Bank Press Release April 21 2017. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/04/21/remittances-to-developing-countries-decline-for-second-consecutive-year

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • YaunD. N. (2007). Philippine migration to Luxembourg. In Filomenita Mongaya Hoegsholm (Ed.) In de olde worlde: Views of Filipino migrants in Europe (pp. 241242). Philippine Migration Research Network and Philippine Social Science.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation