Globalization stands accused of generating economic instability in developing countries and greatly exacerbating poverty, at least in the short run -- which is the longest period the world's poor can afford to care about. Critics point to the string of economic crises in Africa, Asia and Latin America in recent years, often attributing them to multilateral lenders' demands for full liberalization of foreign trade and capital flows, privatization, and fiscal austerity.
But the raging debate over globalization often overlooks an increasingly important feature that makes life better and more stable for poor people in developing countries right now -- the many millions of migrants who send money home. Data on families in developing countries that receive money from relatives working abroad directly demonstrate that at least one element of globalization -- migration -- increases economic stability in poor countries.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Migrants from struggling countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia and other regions are increasingly securing jobs at wages that, while low by rich country standards, are far higher than they could dream of back home. In 2001, workers from low- and middle-income countries sent home a staggering US$43 billion -- more than double the level of a decade earlier and US$5 billion more than that year's total official foreign aid to these countries.
Migrant workers may send money home for a variety of reasons: to maintain good family relations, to ensure an inheritance or to re-pay a loan from elders. But whatever the reason, these so-called "remittances" -- the cash workers send home to countries like Colombia, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico and Bangladesh -- act as a safety net that their governments typically need but cannot afford to provide.
This is particularly true in small, developing economies. Here incomes are often considerably more volatile than in richer countries, owing to heavy reliance on a few commodities or industries and hence higher vulnerability to external shocks, including weather-related and other natural disasters.
Indeed, poor countries also often lack the private insurance needed to offer the type of emergency assistance that citizens of wealthy nations have come to expect. In developing countries, remittances from workers abroad amount to the best insurance around. In addition to providing their families at home with a much-needed source of stable income, expatriate migrant workers send home even more money when catastrophe strikes.
Such remittances enabled thousands of Jamaicans, for example, to recover from the devastation of Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, when storm damage was estimated at more than one-quarter of the country's annual GDP and nearly three households in four reported damage. Insurance was scarce and the government offered only limited help, providing a mere fraction of the aid that was actually needed. Jamaican families got far more help from loved ones living and working in places like Miami, New York and Los Angeles.
The same was true when Argentina's economy collapsed last year, when violence wracked Haiti and a hurricane ravaged Honduras before that, and whenever floods submerge villages in Bangladesh. In case after case, billions of dollars in remittances from migrants have given families in poor countries what their governments (and foreign donors) could not always provide: food, safety, the resources to recover and hope.
The economic importance of such remittances to poor countries in normal times is itself revealing. In Jamaica, remittances from workers abroad make up more than 10 percent of annual GDP on average -- more than double the level of foreign direct investment. After Hurricane Gilbert, remittances increased by US$0.25 for each dollar of hurricane damage that households incurred.
To be sure, this implies that the extra money sent home provided only partial insurance. Perhaps migrants worry -- just like actual insurance companies -- that furnishing too much assistance would result in recipients doing less to protect themselves. Or maybe the damage from the hurricane was simply too large for migrants to cover completely. After all, migrant workers may be relatively well off by standards at home, but they struggle to earn a decent living in their host countries.
Either way, even if remittances from abroad act as a form of insurance in the event of natural disasters, this does not mean that they will increase when other types of external shocks occur. Damage due to hurricanes is relatively easy to observe and can't be blamed on human mistakes. In contrast, it might be more difficult for a migrant in a distant country to assess the extent to which family members back home, knowing that they can always rely on the remittances, are responsible for other forms of income loss.
Nonetheless, the importance of remittances to households in poor countries, especially during periods of external shock, holds two lessons. First, it should be easy and inexpensive for migrants to send money home. Today, migrants and their families often pay 10 percent or more of the remittances in fees to financial institutions that transfer funds and exchange currencies. Reducing these fees would, in effect, be a tax cut for the world's poorest. Second, and perhaps more importantly, we should embrace migration as a proven method of bringing immediate relief and stability to poor nations. Given that family members are the best judge of need, migration and remittances may, in fact, constitute a foreign-aid framework that is better targeted and more effective than any government program can ever be.
Scott Wallsten is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry