Upload
abraham-casey
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Migrant remittances in Europe and Central AsiaRecent trends and global experiences in remittance data collection
Sanket Mohapatra (with D. Ratha, J. Irving and A. Silwal)Development Prospects GroupWorld Bank
ECA Migration and Remittances Peer Assisted Learning Network (MiRPAL)Washington DCMarch 26, 2010
Outline
Recent trends in migration and remittances in Europe and Central Asia
◦ Intra-regional and out of region migration
◦ Impact of financial crisis on remittance flows
Improving remittance data collection – global experiences
◦ Findings from global survey of central banks on collection of remittances data
◦ Recent policy initiatives to improve remittance data collection
Global experiences in data collection of remittances
Draws on findings from global survey of central banks on migrant remittances - by Dilip Ratha, Jacqueline Irving, and Sanket Mohapatra (forthcoming as World Bank Working Paper)
One of the aims of global survey to gain a better understanding of how central banks collect data and other information on migrant remittance flows.
Survey questions on data collection
Which institutions collect data? What are the methods? What RSPs are covered? How are these changing? How are RSPs regulated? How does regulation affect costs? What factors affect the choice of
remittance channel?
Inflows and outflows of remittances
Two main versions: focusing on inflows and outflows
Sent to 176 countries worldwide 112 countries have submitted survey responses:
Of which [XX] countries are in Europe and Central Asia
Remittance receiving countries
Remittance source countries
Inflows are better monitored than outflows
Almost all (96%) remittance-receiving countries collect data, vs. 84% of remittance-sending countries
Data collection has been going on longer for inflows than for outflows:
72% of remittance-receiving countries collecting data for more than 5 years
55% of remittance-sending countries collecting data for more than 5 years
Under-recording of remittances
Lower priority given to recording remittance outflows by many migrant host countries—particularly where remittances are small relative to GDP ◦ Russian Federation a notable exception
Use of cross-border data reporting thresholds Many central banks until recently relied on data
reported solely by banks; more nonbank RSPs are beginning to report data
Remittances hand carried by migrants and others visiting migrants’ home countries
In-kind remittances
Some lack of coordination in data collection
Within the same institutionAcross national institutionsBetween counterpart national
institutions, including for major remittance corridors
Data collection/estimates of informal remittances
42% of the remittance-receiving countries said they collect data on informal remittances
70% of the remittance-receiving countries that collect these data reported doing so with regularity
But a considerably fewer number of remittance-receiving countries (17%) provided actual informal flows data estimates
Only two of the remittance-sending countries (Germany and Russia) indicated that they collect data on informal remittances
Methods of estimating informal flows
3
3
3
3
7
7
13
27
47
0 10 20 30 40 50
Errors & omissions in BoP
Number of workers abroad
Information from newspapers
Expert estimates
Foreign embassies on labour permits
Cash carried across borders bycourrier/transport companies
Cash carried at entry points
Share in foreign exchange transactions
Propensity to remit from surveys
Percent of central banks
Regulation of RSPs is weak in remittance- receiving countries
Many new market entrants’ remittance activities are not regulated:◦ 39% of post offices◦ 37% of MFIs◦ 25% of mobile phone service providers◦ 23% of MTOs
Better statistics and studies are cited as areas needing attention
28
42
47
49
61
63
0 20 40 60 80
Financial integrityissues
Increased competitionamong RSPs
New remittancetechnologies/products
Delivery of remittancesto remote areas
Better statistics onremittances
Better statistics &studies on migrants
Remittance-receivingcountries
% of central banks citing area as needing improvement to increase efficiency, security of transfer s
High cost was cited as top factor inhibiting use of formal channels
15
29
42
49
50
50
57
0 20 40 60
Exchange controls
Mistrust of formal financial institutions
Sender's lack of valid ID
No bank branch near beneficiary
Mistrust/lack of info. on electronic transfers
Recipient's lack of access to bankaccounts
High cost
% of central banks
Remittance-receiving countries
Policy recommendations – improving data collection
Improve procedures for remittances data collection and monitoring, including by compiling and monitoring cross-border remittance flows data at higher frequencies and disaggregated by source country where possible.
For many remittance-receiving countries, revise data compilation methods to better distinguish remittance inflows from other capital inflows.
As new RSP entrants emerge, it becomes increasingly important for countries to give priority to determining an effective means of taking into account these new channels and technologies in data collection and monitoring.
Policy recommendations - improving coordination within and across countries
Improve coordination in data monitoring, with more systematic data and information exchange, better communication, and more effective division of labor to avoid duplication of efforts.
Better coordination in data collection both across different institutions and between different divisions within the same institution.
For major remittance corridors, developing some means of regular, more systematic data and information sharing and exchange on migrant remittance flows between counterpart national institutions.
One of four thematic areas of Global Remittances Working Group (GRWG) is on improving remittances data Technical meeting in June 2009, Washington DC
(follow-up meeting in Rome in November 2009). Technical working group will meet periodically to:
◦ Promote sharing of detailed metadata about country practices◦ Develop web-based mechanism for controlled exchange of
“bilateral” data, to help countries examine asymmetries◦ Provide global coordination mechanism for regional initiatives
(such as the CEMLA program)◦ Promote country capacity building and technical assistance
Improving data collection efforts through household/labor force surveys◦ Using household surveys to improve Balance of Payments
statistics
◦ Compilation of household surveys containing migration and remittance questions/modules
Thematic Area 1 leader: Neil Fantom, Development Data Group, World Bank.