This study is a first-rate macroeconomic analysis of the characteristics of Puerto Ricans migrating to the United States and the consequences of this migration for the economic development of Puerto Rico. It is divided into a theoretical analysis of the role of emigration in development and an empirical analysis of the data available for Puerto Rico. Friedlander argues: “In order for emigration to have a substantial effect on economic growth, two conditions were found to be essential: (a) the size of the emigration must be sufficient to affect significantly the rate of population growth; and (b) the migrants must be unskilled, uneducated, and for the most part redundant workers” (p. 157).
The emigration did indeed affect the rate of population growth, since 84% of the emigrants were in the 15 to 44 age group. The same age group left on the island was thereby reduced by some 34%, and the rate of natural increase declined from around 3% in 1947 to 0.6% during the decade 1950-1960. The emigration of these people permitted an increase in per capita income and lessened the pressure on schools, thereby permitting educational levels on the island to rise. Almost half of the group which migrated were in the labor force at the time of migration, compared with only 31% of the island population as a whole, thereby reducing the potential size of the Puerto Rican labor force by almost 50%. The huge capital investments which took place in Puerto Rico at this time did not themselves reduce unemployment, but migration did. The infusions of capital did help increase labor productivity to an annual rate of approximately 6.7% during the decade 1950-1960. This increase in labor productivity was also markedly affected by the emigration of redundant, largely unskilled labor.
With this excellent analysis of the migration data available at the national level it would now be worthwhile for someone to undertake a study of the effects of emigration on smaller units within Puerto Rico—for instance, a few rural communities. There are several indicators presented in the book which do not support Friedlander’s notion that the emigrants were disproportionately unskilled, poorly educated people and for the most part redundant laborers. For many communities the effect of emigration may be quite different from that which appears to be the case for the island as a whole. He cites evidence that the migrants were better educated than the people of the same age and sex who did not migrate (p. 103). He also reports (p. 89) that the occupational classification of farmers and farm managers decreases through migration more than farm laborers and foremen (62.2% as compared with 38.6%). This might indicate a loss of the more skilled, better educated rural people through emigration than he finds to be generally the case at the national level. That is, the rural villages may be losing a disproportionate share of their local middle and upper class through emigration, whereas these people do not show up as middle class at the national level.
In my opinion, this study is an extremely valuable contribution to the literature both in migration and in economic development, and it should serve as a useful base for more detailed microstudies.
