Teleuse by the Bangladeshi migrant worker This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Canada

Teleuse by the Bangladeshi migrant worker

This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Canada and the Department for International Development, UK, with contributions from Telenor Research & Development Centre Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia.Photo credits: CKS Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

Teleuse@BOP background

• Objective: To understand how Bottom of the Pyramid interacts with ICTs (mostly phones) to better inform policy• Large surveys of ‘BOP’ conducted in 2005, 2006, 2008• Almost 20,000 face to face interviews in 6 countries since 2005

• Bangladesh (2008)• Pakistan• India• Sri Lanka• Philippines• Thailand

• Funded by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada, the Department for International Development (DFID), UK with contributions from Telenor Research and Innovation, Malaysia

2

Method

• Multi-stage stratified sampling, random selection of households and individuals

• Field research conducted by Nielsen; 12 languages; 6 countries• Migrant worker teleusers at “bottom of the pyramid”

– SEC groups C* + D + E– Overseas and domestic migrants that send money home

3

Samples

Bangladesh Pakistan[1] India Sri Lanka[2] Philippines[3] Thailand[4] Total BOP teleusers 2,050 1,814 3,152 924 800 800 9,540Margin of error @ 95% CL (%) + 3% + 2% + 2% + 3% + 4% + 4%

Diary Sample 1,025 900 1,600 450 400 400 4,775

Migrant workers 350 300 400 200 200 100 1,550

4

[1] Pakistan: Excludes tribal regions[2] Sri Lanka: Excludes North and East[3] Philippines: Survey was undertaken only among SEC E[4] Thailand: Excludes Bangkok as the SEC DE population in Bangkok is very small

Sampling logic

• Multi-staged stratified sampling by probability proportionate to size – Regions (states/provinces/districts) randomly selected in

2006; kept the same for comparison in 2008 (except BD)– Stratification of cities within state, province etc– Geographical ordering of cities, villages– PPS selection of cities, villages

• Within PSU– Random starting points– 10 HH per starting point; right hand rule– KISH grid to select respondent in HH

Agenda

WHO ARE THE BOP?BOP TELECOM EXPANSION

ACCESSOWNERSHIP

MARKET POTENTIALWHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES?POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0?BENEFITS?THE UNCONNECTED…

6

back

Agenda

WHO ARE THE BOP?BOP TELECOM EXPANSION

ACCESSOWNERSHIP

MARKET POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES?

POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0?BENEFITS? THE UNCONNECTED…

7

back

The study represents approx. 62 million in Bangladesh

• Teleusers at “bottom of the pyramid”– SEC groups D + E– Aged 15-60

(Rural India: R2, R3, R4)

8

43 52 60 62

0

72

57 48 40 38

100

28

Bangladesh Pakistan India Sri Lanka Philippines Thailand

Socioeconomic group classification (% of sample)

SEC D SEC E

Among BOP teleusers

Link between SEC D+E and "$2 per day" definition


SEC D+E (% of population) 73 59 69 44 38

[SEC E]33

Less than $2 per day (% of population) 78 85 86 45 40 28

Actual population proportions

9

Households earning ~USD71-143 per month (on average)

10Among BOP teleusers

54% of Bangladeshi BOP households don't own a phone 54% BOP = 57% of BOP teleusers

• 80% of these non-owners can reach a phone in under 5 minutes– Urban: 89% can reach a phone in under 5 mins– Rural: 78% can reach a phone in under 5 mins

Among all BOP teleusers

54 5748

2429

7


Non-ownership (% of BOP)

Main reasons for not owning are affordability and the lack of a need

Among BOP non-owner teleusers

Bangladeshi BOP can afford USD23 to get connected, but think that it will actually cost them USD38


3829 31

4935

60

23 22 22 2213

63


Initial cost of getting connected (USD)

Expected Affordable

Once connected they can afford to spend USD1.80 per month on communication costs, while they think it will actually cost them USD2.50

14

2.5 2.8 2.75.2 6.1 6.6

1.8 2.3 1.94.2 5.3

11.0


Monthly expenditure (USD)

Expected Affordable


31% of the current unconnected BOP in Bangladesh plan to get connected; 98% through a mobile

Among BOP non-owner teleusers planning to get connected

98% 93% 92%

58%

89% 100%

0% 0% 1%

6%

6%0%0% 2% 1%

33%0% 0%2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%0% 4% 5% 3% 5% 0%


Type of phone planning to buy (% of potential BOP owners)

Mobile Fixed (wireline) Fixed (wireless) Fixed (undecided) Not decided

Background to migrant study component being released for first time in Dhaka today

Method

– SEC groups C* + D + E, aged between 15 – 60– Migrant worker & migrant worker families (qualitative) interviewed. – “domestic” and “overseas” migrants

– Domestic: Living and working away from home (within the same country)– Overseas: Returned (temporarily or permanently) from working in a foreign country

– Had used a phone in the last three months– Had sent money to family in the last thee months

Quantitative

1,500+ face-to-face interviews Oct-Nov 2008

Qualitative

Depth interviews through home visits with migrant workers and/or families in location of origin Feb-Mar 2009

•A small sample of SEC C users was taken in Pakistan

Quantitative sample

18

[1] Pakistan: Excludes tribal regions; includes SEC C[2] Sri Lanka: Excludes North and East[3] Thailand: Excludes Bangkok as the SEC DE population in Bangkok is very small

Bangladesh Pakistan[1] India Sri Lanka[2] Philippines Thailand[3]

Domestic migrant 170 111 116 104 150

Overseas migrant 180 199 307 106 50 100

Total 350 310 423 210 200 100

Qualitative sample

Home visits with media mapping

IndiaUrban 0Peri-urban 4Rural 2

Bangladesh Urban 2Rural 2

Pakistan Urban 2Rural 2

Sri Lanka Urban 2Rural 2

Philippines Urban 1Rural 1

Thailand Urban 1Rural 1

Total 22

With migrant workers & migrant

worker families

Outline

> Migrant worker sample characteristics> Communicating home> Sending money home> Mobile remittances?

21

Migrant worker characteristics

Mostly SEC D and E, some C in PK

• Migrant workers (domestic or overseas) from “bottom of the pyramid” who remit money to family

– SEC groups D + E mainly, some C in PK– Aged 15-60

Socio-economic group classification (% of BOP)

27%

41%

57% 60% 65%

48%

49%

32%43% 40% 36%

52%

51%


SEC C SEC D SEC E

Mostly males in BD, PK & IN; males + females in LK, PH and THMore educated migrants from PK* and PH* includes SEC C migrants

Migrants earning USD 417 (overseas) & USD 124 (domestic) per month on average

Bangladesh Pakistan * India Sri Lanka Philippines Thailand

Overseas Mode 432 261 556 138 435

Mean (sd)

485(516)

346 (195)

413(168)

294(214)

475(325)

Domestic Mode 86 105 67 138 174 232

Mean (sd)

84(44)

136 (142)

100(56)

125(56)

164(110)

259(143)


Bank account 32% 29% 48% 84% 53% 80%

Credit card 11% 5% 4% 15% 11% 16%

Ownership of bank account or credit card (% of BOP migrants surveyed)

* Many refused to answer

Monthly personal income (USD)

Majority of overseas migrants work in Middle East; Southeast Asia also popular among SeA migrants

Bangladesh destination countries

Communicating home

28% Bangladeshi overseas migrants make Internet calls; 8% Internet chat (everyone, except a few Filipinos, uses the phone!)

Overseas migrants

Domestic migrants

020406080

100


Modes of communication with family and friends at home (% of BOP domestic migrants surveyed)

Telephone calls SMS Letters/Telegrams Emails Internet calls/Internal text chatting Faxes Other

3616

3 8 80

0

20

40

60

80

100


Modes of communication with family and friends at home (% of BOP overseas migrants surveyed)

Telephone calls SMS Letters/Telegrams Emails Internet calls/chatting Faxes Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Most frequently used phone (% of domestic migrants surveyed)Others

Public access phones

A friend or relatives phone

My work place phone / Office phone / employers phoneA neighbours phone

Common household phone

My own phone

Own phones (mostly mobile) used most as primary phone, followed by public phones; primary use to keep in touch with loved ones at home, and for work (depending on job)

Domestic migrants

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bangladesh Pakistan India Sri Lanka Philippines

Most frequently used phone (% of overseas migrants surveyed)Public access phones

A friend or relatives phone

My work place phone / Office phone / employers phoneA neighbours phone

Common household phone

My own phone

Overseas migrants

Simi | Farmer / housewife / mother of domestic migrantSimi | Farmer / housewife / mother of domestic migrantJae Hom, Thailand (rural)Jae Hom, Thailand (rural)

• Migration almost always results in mobile adoption, either the migrant purchases the handset and gives it to her family, or she passes down her handset and buys a new one for herself.• Simi’s son is a domestic migrant. She has a mobile primarily to keep in touch her son who works outside of the city. After he migrated, the need to be in constant touch with her son arose. • Before owning a mobile, communicating with her son involved lots of time, effort and constant mediation by others.

- To call she had to travel (a considerable distance) by bike with her husband to a public phone, where she would often have to spend time waiting in line. - To receive a call from him, she would have to go by bike with her cousin to the cousin’s house where she could receive the call.

• After two years her son bought her a mobile phone.

Bangladeshi and Pakistani overseas migrants call home most frequently: 87% in BD call home at least once a week; 34% dailyBased on respondent recall

Overseas migrants

• The primary need for communication was to keep in touch with loved ones at home. Depending on the type of job (e.g., client-driven, delivery-based, etc.) some need to communicate with local contacts.

• Often, the communication needs of overseas migrants are limited to communication with family and friends at home, rather than contacts within their destination country. However once they return home for holidays, the need to stay in touch with supervisors/bosses/colleagues in increases, in order to ensure they have a job (or the same position) to return to.

0

20

40

60

80

100


Frequency of calls (% of overseas migrant respondents who make calls)Can't sayLess frequent than once in two monthsOnce in two monthsOnce a monthTwo to three times a monthOnce a weekTwo to six times a weekOnce a dayMore than once a day

At least once a week

Daily

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Frequency of calls (% of domestic migrant respondents that make calls)

Can't sayLess frequent than once in two monthsOnce in two monthsOnce a monthTwo to three times a monthOnce a weekTwo to six times a weekOnce a dayMore than once a day

Domestic migrants call more frequently than overseas migrants; again highest in BDBased on respondent recall

Domestic migrants

Per-minute peak tariffs (pre-paid)

Bangladesh Pakistan India* Sri Lanka Philippines Thailand

Mobile (on-net) 0.025 0.029 0.023 0.047 0.134 0.086

Mobile (off-net) 0.034 0.032 0.023 0.071 0.155 0.086

Fixed (Local/National) 0.034 0.032 0.023 0.071 0.155 0.086

Source: LIRNEasia (2008, October). Mobile Price Benchmarks* Refers to local charges only; national per-minute tariff is 0.034

At least once a week

Daily

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bangladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Philippines

Frequency of use of SMS (% of overseas migrants who use SMS)Can't sayLess frequent than once in two monthsOnce in two monthsthree to four times a monthOnce in two weeksOnce a weekTwo to six times a weekOnce a dayMore than once a day

SMS popular among PK and PH overseas migrants, and PK, LK and PH domestic migrants

Overseas migrants

Domestic migrants

SMS charges (prepaid; USD)

Bangladesh Pakistan India* Sri Lanka Philippines Thailand

SMS (on-net) 0.017 0.016 0.023 0.012 0.021 0.058

SMS (off-net) 0.017 0.025 0.023 0.024 0.021 0.058Source: LIRNEasia (2008, October), Mobile Price Benchmarks.* Refers to local charges only; national per-minute tariff is 0.034

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Pakistan India Sri Lanka Philippines

Frequency of use of SMS - domestic migrants (% of domestic migrants who use SMS)Can't sayLess frequent than once in two monthsOnce in two monthsthree to four times a monthOnce in two weeksOnce a weekTwo to six times a weekOnce a dayMore than once a day

Bangladeshi overseas migrants spend most: USD48 per month on average; thrice that in IN/PH; most overseas B’deshis spend USD 40-50/month, most others spend USD10-20

0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00

15-Average monthly expenditure for communication (In USD)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 48.0906Std. Dev. = 35.17881N = 170

Histogram

BangladeshMean: USD 48

Most spend USD 40-50

PakistanMean: USD 36

Most spend USD 10-20

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00


0

5

10

15

20

25

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 36.1558Std. Dev. = 32.68238N = 109

Histogram

IndiaMean: USD 15

Most spend USD10-20

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00


0

10

20

30

40

50

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 15.0642Std. Dev. = 18.52647N = 116

Histogram

Overseas migrants

Mean monthly expenditure on communicating home (cont'd)

Sri Lanka Mean: USD 38

Most spend USD10-20

PhilippinesMean: USD 16

Most spend USD10-20

Overseas migrants

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 37.5765Std. Dev. = 32.65786N = 96

Histogram

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 37.5765Std. Dev. = 32.65786N = 96

Histogram

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

36-Average monthly expenditure (USD)

0

50

100

150

200

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 3.3414Std. Dev. = 4.70375N = 304

Histogram

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00


0

20

40

60

80

100

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 8.5283Std. Dev. = 13.33638N = 199

Histogram

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fre

qu

en

cy

Mean = 7.0807Std. Dev. = 13.39107N = 180

Histogram

Domestic migrants

BangladeshMean: USD 7.08

Most spend less than USD 5

PakistanMean: USD 8.52

Most spend less than USD 5

IndiaMean: USD 3.34

Most spend less than USD 6.67

Domestic migrants

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 9.6774Std. Dev. = 10.62936N = 100

Histogram

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 4.4022Std. Dev. = 3.83997N = 50

Histogram

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00


0

10

20

30

40

Fre

qu

ency

Mean = 8.6034Std. Dev. = 10.95279N = 103

Histogram

Sri Lanka Mean: USD 8.60

Most spend less than USD 6.67

PhilippinesMean: USD 4.40

Most spend USD1.25-2.50

Domestic migrants

ThailandMean: USD 9.68

Most spend USD5-10

Cost of calling home from 4* of top 5 destination countries: Off-peak* International calling rates from Kuwait not available

• Per minute cost of calling home using largest mobile operator (except UAE: second largest)

Calling from

To

USD1.20

USD1.17

USD0.58

Cost of calling home from 4* of top 5 destination countries: Peak* International calling rates from Kuwait not available

• Per minute cost of calling home using largest mobile operator (except UAE: second largest)

Calling from

To

USD1.34USD1.24

USD0.65

Bangladeshi overseas migrants make longer calls Based on respondent recall

Longer calls, more often higher costs

Sending money home

Lourdes | GrandmotherLourdes | Grandmother57 | Metro Manila, Philippines 57 | Metro Manila, Philippines

USD 9b overseas remittances to Bangladesh in 2008 (AFP, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jyBqlJab_jioB-w9Mnn1lhf55lIQ )

• Nearly 10% of GDP; significant contributor to foreign reserves

• May 2009 saw record of USD 890m in remittances • Official estimates: 6.3m overseas migrants (unofficial:

9m)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jyBqlJab_jioB-w9Mnn1lhf55lIQ

Bangladeshi overseas migrants remit USD203 per month on average (highest in S Asia); domestic remit USD27


Overseas Mean(sd)

203(143)

198(182)

182(89)

137(129)

249(208)

Mode 144 261 222 92 217

Domestic Mean 27(20)

93(111)

51(38)

60(96)

91(88)

54(51)

Mode 29 52 44 46 43 29

Most BD overseas migrants send money home every 1-2 months; less frequently than in PK

Overseas migrants

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Frequency of remittances (% of overseas migrants surveyed)Refused

Once a year

Once every six months

Once every four months

Once every three months

Once every two months

Once a month

More than once a month

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Methods of remittance (% of overseas migrants surveyed)I deposit money straight into their bank accounts/bank transfersI take the money with me when I go home

I send it in cash with another friend or relative

Purchase goods and send to my family through othersHundi/ Hawala

Postal money orders/postal mail

Money transfer through mobile phone payment systemsMoney Transferring services (Eg: Western Union, Money Gram..etcRefused

Other (incl. internet payment systems)

Overseas migrants mostly send money through banks or in cash (low cost option)

Overseas migrants

Sending money through banks is seen to be cheap and reliable; often migrants open bank accounts for their family in order to receive money. Drawbacks are that a visit

to the bank is necessary (though some migrants befriend bank workers –often countrymen– who facilitate transfers

without the migrant needing to visit), and banking facilities should be easily

accessible to the migrant’s family too

Though many in the Philippines use money transfer services (e.g. Western Union),

it is seen to be more expensive, therefore used as a

second option, to bank transfers

Hundi can be costly, but is capable of doorstep delivery in rural areas; additionally, loans

can also be taken from the vendor (at high interest rates);

it is seen to be reliable in IN and PK, but not BD and LK

Domestic migrants mostly remit once a month (when they go home)

Domestic migrants

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Frequency of remittances (% of domestic migrants surveyed)Refused

Once a year

Once every six months

Once every four months

Once every three months

Once every two months

Once a month

More than once a month

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Methods of remittance (% of domestic migrants surveyed)

I deposit money straight into their bank accounts/bank transfers

I take the money with me when I go home

I send it in cash with another friend or relative

Purchase goods and send to my family through others

Hundi/ Hawala

Postal money orders/postal mail

Money transfer through mobile phone payment systems

Money Transferring services (Eg: Western Union, Money Gram..etc

Refused

Domestic migrants send/take money in cash; "mobile payments" used by 6 % in BD and 2 % in PH

Domestic migrants

Sending money with friends and relatives is free and

reliable and thus popular; it is often reciprocal; includes sending money through

(known) bus or ferry drivers

Post office money transfers, are extremely popular among domestic migrants in India

due to the low cost, doorstep delivery, perceived extensive coverage of the postal network, but also the reliability, since it is

operated by the government

Remittances are also delivered through bus drivers in India and Philippines, and ferry drivers in

Bangladesh; often the driver is an acquaintance, so no charge is levied and he knows who exactly to deliver

the money to

Most who remit via banks are satisfied, though complaining of cost in LK and PH

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bangladesh India Sri Lanka Philippines

How satisfied migrants are with bank deposits/transfers: Cost (% of migrants who remit via banks most often)

Extremely Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Extremely Dissatisfied

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


How satisfied migrants are with bank deposits/transfers: Reliability/trustworthiness (% of migrants who remit via banks most

often)

Extremely Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied




Transfer charges?Bank wire transfers were

seen as more expensive and thus resorted to only

emergency situations since transfer takes only minutes

• Bank and wire transfers were among those most popularly used, and was seen as one of the cheaper and convenient options

– E.g., In Dubai, the worker need not have a bank account. The Etisalat Bank provides workers with a bank ID using which they can send money to any account of their choice and the nominal service fee is paid by them in cash. Service charge amounts to 2.5% of the total amount sent or AED 100 (USD 27.2) for transactions less than AED 5,000 (USD 1,360).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


How satisfied migrants are with bank deposits/transfers: Convenience (% of migrants who remit via banks most often)

Extremely Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied




Mobile remittances?

Higher awareness among BD migrants compared to other S Asian migrants; overseas migrants more aware

34

17 20 22

53

30

6 7

22

43

60


Awareness of mobile remittance services (% of migrants surveyed who do not use services)

Overseas Domestic

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Use of mobile remittance services (% of all migrants surveyed)

3% BD migrants* are using "mobile remittances" * 6% of domestic migrants

Operating guidelines for

mobile payments proposed (Jan

2009)

Regulatory framework for mobile banking drafted (June

2008)

Services offered: Smart Padala, G-

Cash

Proposed services (Venyon and

Kasikornbank))

Proposed services (Bharti Airtel, Western

Union)

Services not offered; transfers

possibly via e load

Zayed | Shopkeeper Zayed | Shopkeeper 21 years | Sonargaon, Bangladesh21 years | Sonargaon, Bangladesh

• Once facilitated money “transfer” Once facilitated money “transfer” through mobile for the village through mobile for the village “maulavi” who was away in Dhaka; “maulavi” who was away in Dhaka; the maulavi sent BDT1,000 in load to the maulavi sent BDT1,000 in load to Zayed’s mobile; once the load was Zayed’s mobile; once the load was received, Zayed then paid the same in received, Zayed then paid the same in cash to the maulavi’s family in the cash to the maulavi’s family in the villagevillage

• Other respondents seemed to be Other respondents seemed to be doing the same. It is only available doing the same. It is only available internally, but useful to send money internally, but useful to send money to rural areas.to rural areas.

• Migrants try to maintain good Migrants try to maintain good relations with shopkeepers in their relations with shopkeepers in their village who provide this servicevillage who provide this service

• Transactions of up to BDT5,000 Transactions of up to BDT5,000 (USD70) can be made, however this is (USD70) can be made, however this is dependent upon the shopkeeper dependent upon the shopkeeper having cash available to give the having cash available to give the intended recipient in one gointended recipient in one go

• Commissions can be as high as 20%; Commissions can be as high as 20%; the shopkeeper also makes the shopkeeper also makes commission on reselling the loadcommission on reselling the load

Lack of know-how is key barrier to greater use in BD

Other barriers to the use of mobiles for financial transactions

• Low levels of literacy lack of confidence– Lack of English literacy (mobile content predominantly in English)

• Except for Philippines, respondents cited difficulty navigating mobile interface, especially older respondents

• Perception that a certain set of “soft skills” are needed in order to use such services, none of which they have

• For the immediate future, banks, hundi, social networks, etc offer sufficient reliability. Open to the idea of new services, though concerns of credibility of service providers prevail; unwilling to invest until results are shown

PK and BD most willing to use services, if affordably priced; not so much enthusiasm in PH!

81% 87%

58% 63%56% 53%


Willing to use mobile remittances if available at an affordable cost (% of non-user migrants surveyed who are aware)

The future?

• Existing methods provide sufficient reliability, are convenient and are affordable• BOP migrant workers unwilling to pay large service

charges/commissions to transfer remittances

• BOP migrant workers open to learning about new services, but place premium on trustworthiness• Would prefer if banks are involved

• Even when mobiles remittance services not used, mobiles used to coordinate remittances• Sending transaction codes over SMS; calling to confirm receipt,

etc.

Saleem Afeez | Dispensary owner Saleem Afeez | Dispensary owner Saeeda Begum I Housewife Saeeda Begum I Housewife 53 years | Dhaka, Bangladesh 53 years | Dhaka, Bangladesh 46 years | Dhaka, Bangladesh 46 years | Dhaka, Bangladesh

• Saleem and Saeeda’s eldest Saleem and Saeeda’s eldest son is an overseas migrant son is an overseas migrant working in Singaporeworking in Singapore

• He sends his parents BDT He sends his parents BDT 10,000-15,000 per month. He 10,000-15,000 per month. He transfers the money from his transfers the money from his bank account to his father’s.bank account to his father’s.

• He calls on the day that the He calls on the day that the transfer is made. After four transfer is made. After four days Saleem goes to the bank days Saleem goes to the bank and withdraws the money and withdraws the money through a chequethrough a cheque

• They find this process the They find this process the most reliable; money has never most reliable; money has never been delayed or lost. been delayed or lost.

• Saleem is aware of the hundi Saleem is aware of the hundi system but does not trust itsystem but does not trust it

•He is open to trying financial He is open to trying financial services but would need services but would need substantial proof of its substantial proof of its reliability for him to take it upreliability for him to take it up

Policy implications: ILDTS policy is counterproductive and unfair

• Harms overseas workers and is shortsighted with respect to real source of money– Those who call Bangladesh include many who are poor;

they work hard to support their families and provide foreign exchange earnings for Bangladesh

• They spend more money than those from comparator countries on communication (USD 48 v USD 15 for Indians)

• They have been pushed to use less-convenient Internet mode

• The government is not taking 52% of the money of IGW operators; it is taking 52% of the hard-earned money of its overseas workers

ILDTS policy harmful in other ways: Why are IN, PK & LK earning from BPOs, and BD not?

1. India (position in 2007 GSLI: 1) 2.China (2) 3.Malaysia (3) 4.Thailand (4) 5.Indonesia(6) 6.Egypt (13) 7.Philippines (8) 8.Chile (7) 9.Jordan (14) 10.Vietnam (19) 11.Mexico (10) 12.Brazil (5) 13.Bulgaria (9) 14.United States (Tier II)* (21) 15.Ghana (27) 16.Sri Lanka (29) •Tunisia (26) 2.Estonia (15) 3.Romania (33) 4.Pakistan (30) 5.Lithuania (28) 6.Latvia (17) 7.Costa Rica (34) 8.Jamaica (32) 9.Mauritius (25)

26.Senegal (39) 27.Argentina (23) 28.Canada (35) 29.United Arab Emirates (20) 30.Morocco (36) 31.United Kingdom (Tier II)* (42) 32.Czech Republic (16) 33.Russia (37) 34.Germany (Tier II)* (40) 35.Singapore (11) 36.Uruguay (22) 37.Hungary (24) 38.Poland (18) 39.South Africa (31) 40.Slovakia (12) 41.France (Tier II)* (48) •Ukraine (47) 27.Panama (41) 28.Turkey (49) 29.Spain (43) 30.New Zealand (44) 31.Australia (45) 32.Ireland (50) 33.Israel (38) 34.Portugal (46)

AT Kearny 2009rankings

Documents

Teleuse by the Bangladeshi migrant worker This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Canada