1 / 35

Jason P. Schachter Consultant, IHSN [1] [1] Former Senior Statistician, ILO Bureau of Statistics

A Comparison of Recent Internationally Coordinated Household Surveys on International Migrant Remittances: In Search of Common Ground. Jason P. Schachter Consultant, IHSN [1] [1] Former Senior Statistician, ILO Bureau of Statistics.

kiara-foley
Download Presentation

Jason P. Schachter Consultant, IHSN [1] [1] Former Senior Statistician, ILO Bureau of Statistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of Recent Internationally Coordinated Household Surveys on International Migrant Remittances: In Search of Common Ground Jason P. Schachter Consultant, IHSN[1] [1]Former Senior Statistician, ILO Bureau of Statistics Expert Group Meeting on the Contribution of Household Surveys to Measuring Remittances Suitland MD, January 14-5, 2008

  2. Introduction • As international migration continues to grow, so do migrant worker remittances. • Current remittance data are poor, need to improve their quality and measures used. • There has been a corresponding increase in the number of internationally coordinated household surveys to measure remittances.

  3. Research Questions • Harmonized concepts and measures (questions) needed to improve the reliability, validity, and comparability of data. • How have recent internationally coordinated surveys conceptualized and measured international migrant remittances? • What are similarities and differences in terms of coverage and measurement? • How can surveys be better harmonized? • Is a “Balance of Payment” framework appropriate?

  4. New BOP Definition of Remittances • Definitions recently revised by IMF (TSG, Luxembourg group) • Concept of “migrant” no longer relevant, as definitions based on residency (at least 12 months in household) New categories • 1. Personal Transfers (all current transfers in cash or in kind between resident and non-resident households) • 2. Employee Compensation (transfers between non-resident households) • 3. Personal Remittances (1 and 2, plus capital transfers between households –total net worth of households transferred at initial time of migration-) • 4. Total Remittances: Personal remittances plus social benefits (social insurance and assistance) • 5. Total Remittances and Transfers to NPISHs.

  5. New BOP Definitions, Cont. • Reporting of bi-lateral flows • Independent of relationship between sender-receiver, so family and non-family transfers included. • Except for personal transfer category, new definitions are supplementary, thus countries are encouraged (not required) to complete. • Remittances can be: Monetary: Cash, money transfers, cheques, etc. In-Kind: Goods, donations, payments made on behalf of others, etc.

  6. Some Limitations of “Balance of Payment" Remittance Data • Inability of banks to distinguish between short-and long-term migrants (one-year residency) • Inconsistent recording and reporting practices of BOP between, and even within, countries over time • Inability to identify flows (where remittances go) • Small transactions often go unrecorded by banks • Miss transactions made at non-bank locations (e.g. money transfer centres) • Lack of information about "informal" (e.g. hand-carried) or “in-kind” (e.g. goods) remittances

  7. How Can Household Surveys Help Measure Remittances? • Improve measurement of the size of remittances by collecting information missing from current BOP methods (i.e. informal and “in-kind” remittances, etc.) • Measurement of the characteristics of remittance senders and receivers. • Measurement of the impact of remittances

  8. Potential Drawbacks to Household Surveys • Coverage: Many sampling frames miss foreigners and/or GQ populations (which often house temporary migrants) • Large sample needed to identify flows • Hard to find population: Insufficient number of cases, particularly in destination countries, since using a sample of the population to measure a relatively rare event (migration). Often need to use adaptive sampling techniques. • Non-response, particularly for “illegal” migrants • Data quality (question sensitivity): Data recall and accuracy, especially for money-related information • Cost of conducting (and sustaining) household surveys

  9. Household Surveys Measuring Remittances • Several countries include remittance questions on national household surveys. • Census: e.g. Guam, Dominican Republic, Palau, Tuvalu, St. Lucia (just a few questions) • More detailed remittance questions included as modules on several national household surveys, as well as internationally coordinated surveys

  10. National Examples • Philippines LFS: Survey on Overseas Filipinos Since 1991, October LFS, 40,000 households. Remittances received. • Costa Rica: Multi-Purpose Household Survey Since 2002, July, 15,000 households. Remittances sent and received. • Thailand LFS Migration Supplement Since 2004, Oct-Dec of LFS. 80,000 households. Remittances received (internal).

  11. Examples of Internationally Coordinated Surveys • World Bank Living Standards and Measurement Study (LSMS) Surveys • World Bank Ad-Hoc Surveys • International Labour Office (ILO) Migration Module (and pilot tests) • International Organization for Migration (IOM) sponsored surveys • Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (and MIF) sponsored surveys • UK Department for International Development (DFID) sponsored surveys

  12. World Bank • LSMS first pilot tested in 1985, conducted in over 40 countries since (not a standardized questionnaire) • Ghana Livings Standards Survey 5 (2005-6) included dedicated migration and remittance module. Since 1987 (about every 7 years), 6,000 households (in 1998) • Albania LSMS 2005 included a large number of migration and remittances questions. Since 2002 (annual?), 3,600 households in 2005 • Ad-Hoc Surveys, e.g. International Remittance Sender Survey. Belgium (2005?), African-born remittance senders to Nigeria, Republic of Congo, and Senegal. Adaptive sampling method used

  13. ILO • ILO developed migration module in 2005-6, for attachment to household surveys (LFS). About 200 questions, including many on remittances Questions tested in: • Armenia (2006): Ad hoc, 2,000 households, 30 questions related to remittances • Thailand (2006): on preexisting LFS migration module, 80,000 households, 20 questions (remittances received) • Egypt (2007): LFS, 20,000 households, 40 questions • Ecuador (2007): Work and Employment Survey, 6,000 households, 40 questions • Moldova (2007). LFS, some related migration and remittance questions tested. About 40 questions to recent returned and current migrants

  14. IOM • Sponsor several surveys, but usually outsource development • CBXSA Survey on Migration and Remittances in Moldova: CBXSA and Kiel Institute for World Economics. Biannual since 2004, large survey (150 questions) to 4,000 households in 2006 • Guatemala: National Survey on Family Remittances (2006). Based on previous survey conducted in 2002-3, 2,800 households, about 20 remittance questions • Other remittance research in Albania, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Serbia, and Tajikistan

  15. IDB • Sponsored a number of remittances surveys in Bolivia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, United States (for example) • Typically sample 3,000 individuals (not hhlds), about 15-20 questions, conducted by local research firms • Jamaica example (IDB model): Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL). Jamaica, 2005, 800 Jamaicans who received remittances from Canada, US, or the UK, 26 questions

  16. DFID • Sponsored and co-developed “The BME (Black and Minority Ethnic Community) Remittance Survey in the United Kingdom” • Conducted in 2006, by ICM research, to 1,800 BME households who had remitted abroad in past 12 months. Self-administered questionnaire with 30 questions about remittances sent abroad

  17. How to Measure Remittances on Household Surveys? • What is needed to measure, and how have household surveys measured, remittances? • Recap IMF definition: Remittances all household income obtained or sent from abroad, regardless of relationship between sender and receiver • Monetary or in-kind • Social benefits, NPISHs • Note: in addition to international migrants, internal migrants also send remittances

  18. Concepts Essential for the Measurement of Remittances • Population of interest (sending and receiving countries) • Characteristics of remittance senders and receivers • Size of remittances (total amount, frequency, mode, etc.) • Impact of remittances on receivers (and economic areas)

  19. Population of Interest ORIGIN COUNTRIES (more common) • Return migrants (former remitters) Ex. ILO test countries, LSMS, Philippines • Migrants currently living abroad Ex. ILO, LSMS, IOM, IDB, etc. DESTINATION COUNTRIES (less common) • Current migrants (who remit) Ex. WB Belgium, DFID UK More difficult to sample/find rare population (migrant, who remits). Targeted sampling approaches

  20. Characteristics • Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of senders/receivers (age, sex, education, occupation, etc.), some surveys have more detail than others • If receive/send remittances (all) • Relationship between sender and receiver (most include) • If include non-family members (about half) • Identify flows (almost all)

  21. Characteristics, Cont. If send or receive monetary or in-kind remittances • “Over the past 12 months, did you or anyone else in this household send money to anyone living in (Country)?” WB Belgium • “Apart from money, have you or any other household members received any goods from someone living abroad over the past 12 months?” ILO Armenia

  22. Characteristics, Cont. While many surveys ask about goods, very few ask about other types of in-kind remittances. None conducted ask about social benefits. • “Did (name) remit to this household in kind, at any point during the last year?” LSMS Albania • “Has (ID) sent or donated money/goods to local organization (churches, sports clubs, community projects, et.)?” IOM Moldova • “Apart from money received, has anyone living abroad paid on your behalf or on behalf of other household members any fees (e.g. insurance bills, school tuition, etc.) over the past 12 months?” ILO Ecuador

  23. Size • Total value of remittances sent or received • Time frame usually 12 months, but sometimes ask monthly and/or most recent amount • “Thinking now about the last 12 months, how much money did you think this household has sent family or friends abroad?” DFID UK • “How much did (name) send or give in average per month in the last 12 months?” ILO Moldova • Return migrants usually asked for average amount sent per year while living abroad • “How much money did (NAME) send on the average to your household per year?” LSMS Ghana

  24. Size, Cont. • Almost no surveys measure “net remittances” • “Have you sent remittances to any migrant abroad in the last 12 months?” IOM Moldova • Do household surveys underestimate the actual amount of remittances sent and received?

  25. Other Dimensions of “Size” (characteristics of remittances) • How often remittances sent or received (most ask) • “How many times have you or someone else in your household sent money in the last 12 months?” DFID UK • Mode of delivery (most ask, though different approaches, e.g. number of responses) • “…The main method used by (ID) to send money home in the last 12 months?” IOM Moldova • “What methods were used most frequently to send money to your household over the past 12 months?”) ILO Egypt

  26. Other Dimensions of “Size,” Cont. • Some ask details about monetary transactions (cost, how long it took to receive, trust in banking institutions, etc.) • Goods: value, items, how often, how sent/received • Other in-kind neglected, if do, not ask amount • None ask value of “social benefits,” except ILO complete module (not included on country tests) • “Do you receive a pension for work done while away from this country? How much do you receive monthly?”), ILO Migration Module

  27. Impact • Level of income with and without remittances (most measure, especially if included on national surveys, e.g. LFS) • Dependency on remittances (uncommon) • “Does this person depend on you financially for more than 25% of his/her income?” ILO Migration Module (untested) • “How much do remittances contribute to the household’s budget?” IOM Moldova • Several ask for detailed information about expenditures (LSMS Ghana, IOM Moldova, etc.)

  28. Impact cont. • What money used for (most ask) • Multiple uses: “Considering money received over the past 12 months, did the money enable you or other household members to do any of the following,” ILO Armenia • Main use: “What was the money sent or given by (Name) mainly used for,” ILO Moldova • Top 3 uses: “Now can you tell me about the top three things you do with the money you receive? Please rank in order of importance…,” FOCAL Jamaica • Response categories include: using money for daily needs (food, clothes), buying other household goods, paying for school or medical bills, paying off debts, savings, and various investments (setup business, purchase new or livestock, improve home, etc.).

  29. Harmonization • Though developed independently, many similarities (and some differences) • Harmonized questions needed to enhance quality (reliability and validity) of data, as well as comparability between countries • What essential dimensions needed to harmonize the measurement of remittances? • Should a BOP framework be used?

  30. Recommended Concepts to be Included on Household Survey Questionnaires • Limited number of questions which can be asked • Depends on what exactly you want to measure • Follow good questionnaire design (e.g. clearly worded, mutually exclusive and exhaustive response categories) • Use a 12-month time frame for remittances (monthly) • Return migrants relatively recent (if want remittance details) • Identify sender-receiver relationship and include remittances from non-family (household) members

  31. Recommendations, Cont. • Both monetary and in-kind (not just goods), including social benefits received • Social and demographic characteristics • Income with and without remittances • Use of informal channels (mode of transferal) • Use of remittances (include measure of reinvestment) • Identify duration of residence abroad

  32. Definition of Migrants • Biggest gap is in how surveys define migrants. None use the UN recommended or BOP defined 12-month residency rule (usually current migrants living abroad) • Return migrants sometimes defined as 3 months (UN short-term) abroad, returned between 6 months and 16 years ago • If remittances limited to sent/received in past 12 months, period of migration not impact results • Inconsistency impacts utilization of BOP framework, which depends on residency to define categories

  33. BOP Framework? • To meet residency requirement, surveys must include duration of residence/year-of-entry type questions (most do) • Else not able to match BOP framework, though remittances from non-residents are included in the “total remittances” category • Amount of other types of remittances, like social benefits and transfers to non-profit institutions serving households, would need to be included • BOP framework critical if to use survey data to supplement BOP estimates, but not otherwise.

  34. Conclusions • Harmonization of questionnaires important to improve validity, reliability, and comparability of remittance data • Do not recommend a specific set of best questions, though there are best practices to follow and concepts which should be included in measurement • Questions need to take into account different cultural dimensions, so applicable on a global scale • Need to improve public dissemination of methods and questionnaires used in internationally coordinated surveys (only half available) • Already a large degree of commonality, likely to continue in the future.

  35. Contact Information Jason Schachter, Ph.D Room 5-51 4, Route des Morillons CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland Phone: +41 (0)22 799 6954 E-mail: schachter.ilo@gmail.com

More Related