Download Remittance Facts

Topic
Country
Immigration
United States
Immigration
United States
Immigration
United States
Immigration
United States
Volume
Various
Volume
Various
Volume
United States
Prices
Worldwide
Immigration
Worldwide
Immigration
Immigration
Immigration
Fact
Immigrants are a growing part of the labor force. In 2010 there were 23.1 million foreign-born persons in
the civilian labor force, making up 16.4% of the total. As the foreign-born population has grown as a share
of the total population, they have grown disproportionately as a share of the labor force. By 2010
immigrants were 16% of the labor force, but only 13% of the total population.
In the second half of the 2000s, immigration slowed and the share of labor force growth attributable to
immigrants dipped to 42% of the total.
Nearly one-in-three immigrants lack a diploma. Immigrants are nearly as likely as natives to have a college
degree but much more likely to lack a high school diploma.
Immigrants are over-represented in certain industries: Immigrants represent 15.8% of the civilian employed
population overall, but are over-represented in high- and low-skill industries.
In 2010, the top recipeint countries of recorded remittances were India, China, Mexico, the Philippines,
and France. As a share of GDP, however, smaller countries such as Tajikistan (35%), Tonga (28%),
Lesotho (25%), Moldova (31%), and Nepal (23%) were the largest recipients in 2009.
Worldwide
Volume
Worldwide
Immigration
Mexico-U.S.
Page Number
Date Accessed
(3)
March 22, 2012
(3)
March 22, 2012
(3)
March 22, 2012
(3)
March 22, 2012
(1)
x
March 22, 2012
Top 10 remittance senders in 2009 (billions): the United States ($48.3 bn), Saudi Arabia ($26.0 bn),
Switzerland ($19.6 bn), Russian Federation ($18.6 bn), Germany ($15.9 bn), Italy ($13.0 bn), Spain
($12.6 bn), Luxembourg ($10.6 bn), Kuwait ($9.9 bn), Netherlands ($8.1 bn)
(1)
x
March 22, 2012
High-income countries are the main source of remittances. The United States is by far the largest, with $48
billion in recorded outward flows in 2009. Saudi Arabia ranks as the second largest, followed by
Switzerland and Russia.
(1)
x
March 22, 2012
In the third quarter of 2011, sending $200 abroad, including fees and exchange-rate margins, cost $18.60
on average, an increase of almost 5% on a year earlier. India and China are the largest remittance-receiving
countries. Depending on the migrant workers' country of residence, the cost of sending money home varies
significantly. Japan is the most expensive from which to send money to India or China, followed by France.
Sending money from America and Britain however is much cheaper.
More than 215 million people, or 3 percent of the world population, live outside their countries of birth.
The top migrant destination country is the United States, followed by the Russian Federation, Germany,
Worldwide
Saudi Arabia, and Canada.
The top immigration countries, relative to population are Qatar (87%), Monaco (72%), the United Arab
Worldwide
Emirates (70%), Kuwait (69%), and Andorra (64%)
South-South migration (migration between developing countries) is significantly larger than from the South
Developing Countries to high-income OECD countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (73%) and Europe and Central Asia (61%).
Immigration
Source
Refugees and asylum seekers made up 16.3 million, or 8% of international migrants in 2010. The share of
refugees in the migrant population was 14.6% in low-income countries compared with 2.1% in highincome OECD countries.
In 2011, $483 billion in remittances were sent worldwide. The true size, including unrecorded flows
through formal and informal channels, is believed to be significantly larger.
According to available official data, Mexico–United States is the largest migration corridor in the world,
accounting for 11.6 million migrants in 2010.
(6)
March 22, 2012
(1)
ix
March 22, 2012
(1)
ix
March 22, 2012
(1)
ix
March 22, 2012
(1)
ix, x
March 22, 2012
(1)
x
March 22, 2012
(1)
x
March 22, 2012
(1)
x
March 22, 2012
Topic
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Country
Fact
Remittance flows to developing countries proved to be resilient during the global financial crisis - they fell
only 5.5% in 2009 and registered a quick recovery in 2010. By contrast, there was a decline of 40% in FDI
Developing Countries flows and a 46% decline in private debt and equity flows in 2009. Remittances are a small part of migrants'
incomes, and migrants continue to send remittances when affected by income shocks.
Date Accessed
(1)
x, 17
March 22, 2012
Globally, the flow of personal transfers, and certain compensation, goods, services, and assets from
migrants to their native countries is significantly larger than the flow of official development aid and almost
as large as foreign direct investment (FDI) flows to developing countries.
(1)
x, xvi-xvii
March 22, 2012
Worldwide
Workers' remittances are current private transfers from migrant workers who are considered residents of the
host country to recipients in the workers' country of origin. If the migrants live in the host country for one
year or longer, they are considered residents, regardless of their immigration status. If the migrants have
lived in the host country for less than one year, their entire income in the host country is classified as
compensation of employees.
(1)
xiv
March 22, 2012
(2)
1
March 22, 2012
(2)
1
March 22, 2012
(2)
1
March 22, 2012
(2)
11
March 22, 2012
(2)
12
March 22, 2012
(2)
12
March 22, 2012
(2)
12
March 22, 2012
(2)
12
March 22, 2012
(2)
12
March 22, 2012
(2)
12
March 22, 2012
(2)
12
March 22, 2012
Officially recorded remittance flows to developing countries are estimated to have reached $351 billion in
2011, an 8% increase over $325 billion in 2010. The growth of remittance flows to developing countries is
Developing Countries expected to continue at a rate of 7-8 percent annually and to reach $441 billion by 2014.
Worldwide
Prices
Worldwide
Volume
Page Number
Worldwide
Volume
Volume
Source
Europe
Worldwide remittance flows, including those to high-income countries, are expected to exceed $590 billion
by 2014.
Remittance costs have fallen steadily from 8.8% in 2008 to 7.3% in the third quarter of 2011. However,
remittance costs continue to remain high, especially in Africa and in small nations where remittances
provide a life line to the poor.
Quarterly remittance outflows data up until the second half of 2011 suggests that the growth of remittance
outflows from Western European countries have increased from levels seen at the height of the global
financial crisis in 2008-09, but there has not been a sustained recovery because of the weak economic and
employment situation in these countries. Outward flows from UK, Italy and Spain are still well below the
levels prior to the crisis, while outflows from France have been declining consistently since the last quarter
of 2008.
Despite the crises in North Africa (the "Arab Spring") and the difficult economic situation in Europe,
Sub-Saharan Africa remittance flows to Sub-Saharan Africa are estimated to have increased by 7.4% in 2011.
Volume
Kenya
Volume
Ethiopia
Immigration
Niger
Immigration
Chad
Volume
Egypt
Volume
Tunisia
Remittances from Kenyan migrants grew to $644 million in the first nine months of 2011. Inflows surged
by 45% on a year-on-year basis in part because the weak Kenyan shilling made it more attractive to invest
in local currency assets.
Remittance flows to Ethiopia are reported to have increased to more than $1.5 billion in the 2010-11 fiscal
year.
According to the Government of Niger, some 200,000 Nigeriens have returned to the country after the
crisis began in Libya
Chad has also seen many migrants in Libya return home after the crisis, causing a burden on scarce
resources in the country as well as loss of future remittances.
Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians have returned home since the (Libya) crisis began, causing a
deceleration in the growth of remittances to the country in 2011.
Many Tunisians have returned home from Libya, which has adversely effected remittance flows
Topic
Country
Prices
Worldwide
Prices
Prices
Worldwide
Fact
The G8 and the G20 countries have agreed to the objective of reducing global average remittance costs by
5 percentage points in 5 years ("5 by 5" objective). A 5 percentage point reduction of the global average
cost of remittances' flows is believed to translate into an additional US$ 15 billion annually for recipient
populations.
The World Bank's Remittances Prices Worldwide database shows that the simple average remittance cost at
the global level declined between 2008 and the first quarter of 2010, but then appears to have increased in
subsequent quarters. The average remittance cost, weighted by bilateral remittance flows, however, has
registered a consistently delining trend. Average remittance costs fell from 8.8 percent in 2008 to 7.3
percent in the third quarter of 2011. There is evidence that costs have been falling in high volume
remittance corridors, such as from the US to Mexico, UK to India and Bangladesh, and France to North
Africa.
Although the simple average cost of sending remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa is the highest among the six
developing regions, the weighted average costs for the Middle East and North Afria and East Asia and
Pacific are higher. This is because these regions have several large remittance corridors with relatively high
Developing Countries costs. For example, it is more expensive to send remittances from France to Morocco or from US to China
than it is from UK or US to Nigeria. However, Sub-Saharan Africa, excluding Nigeria, has many smaller
remittance corridors with significantly higher costs.
Volume
Latin America
Volume
Worldwide
Volume
Mexico
Employment
Mexico-U.S.
Immigration
Latin America
Volume
Latin America
Immigration
United States
Immigration
Mexico-U.S.
Remittance flows to Latin America and the Carribbean are estimated to have increased by 7% in 2011 after
remaining almost flat the previous year.
In line with the World Bank's latest outlook for the global economy, remittance flows to developing
countries are expected to grow by 7.3% in 2012, 7.9% in 2013, and 8.4% in 2014. They are expected to
reach $441 billion by 2014. These forecasted rates of growth are considerably lower than those seen prior
to the global financial crisis, when the annual increases in remittances to developing countries averaged
20% during 2003-2008.
Remittances to Mexico surged by 11% in 2011Q3, in part because of the depreciation of the Mexican Peso
relative to the US dollar.
Since the start of the financial crisis in 2008, the employment of migrants in the US has declined less (3.7%) than natives (-4.1%).
The US hosts some three-quarters of all emigrants from countries in the Latin American and Caribbean
region.
Remittances to Latin America have also been affected by the global financial crisis and hgh unemployment
in Spain. Spain hosts about one-tenth of all Latin American migrants.
Arrests by the U.S. Border Patrol along the southwestern frontier, a common gauge of how many people
try to cross without papers, tumbled to 304,755 during the 11 months ended in August 2011, extending a
steady drop since a peak of 1.6 million in 2000.
About 12.5 million Mexican immigrants live in the United States, slightly more than half without papers,
according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(2)
13
March 22, 2012
(2)
13
March 22, 2012
(2)
13
March 22, 2012
(2)
2
March 22, 2012
(2)
2
March 22, 2012
(2)
4
March 22, 2012
(2)
4
March 22, 2012
(2)
4
March 22, 2012
(2)
5
March 22, 2012
(2)
5
March 22, 2012
(2)
5
March 22, 2012
Topic
Country
Volume
India
Exchange Rates
Mexico-U.S.
Fact
Although oil driven economic activities have provided a chusion for remittances to Asian countries,
remittance flows to India (the largest recipient among developing countries) appear to have been relatively
more affected by the weak employment in the US and by the debt crisis in Europe. Quarterly data show
that private current transfers - composed mostly of migrant remittances - increased by 33% in 2010Q1 in a
recovery to the pre-crisis levels of early 2008. However, the growth of remittance inflows has been anemic
in the subsequent period, averaging just 4% since 2010Q2. Remittance flows, especially from the GCC, are
reported to have surged in the second half of 2011 because of a weakening rupee, which may have
prevented remittances from slowing even further in the second half of 2011.
Currency depreciation in many recipient countries is increasing the migrants' incentive to remit: The
Mexican Peso depreciated by nearly 14% between July and November 2011, while remittances to Mexico
increased by 11% in the third quarter on a year on year basis more than doubling from a five percent
average growth in the first half of the year. While part of this increase is because of the economic recovery
in the US, this is also related to the increased purchasing power of remittances.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(2)
7
March 22, 2012
(2)
8
March 22, 2012
(2)
8
March 22, 2012
Immigration
GCC
Saudi Arabia has nearly six migrant workers for each Saudi native in the private sector labor force. The
Saudi private sector will continue to predominantly rely on foreign labor in the forseeable future, and the
opportunity of substitution between Saudi job seekers and migrant workers in the production process
continues to be heavily constrained. Indigenization eforts will displace only a small fraction of foreign
workers, if at all.
Volume
Spain
Despite high levels of unemployment of migrants in Spain, remittance outflows grew by about 15% in the
first half of 2011, as migrants cut into their savings (and even consumption) to be able to send remittances,
and also to prepare for a potential return if the crisis deepened further
(2)
9
March 22, 2012
Spain
Since the financial crisis, Spain has introduced new policies that have made burdensome the process of
hiring foreign workers by employers, in particular a new minimum salary requirement and discontinuation
of an expedited immigration processing option for large businesses. Spain has also seen migrants return to
their home countries since the end of the construction boom in 2007. These include migrants from Ecuador,
Colombia, Argentina and Peru as well as low-skilled migrants from North Africa who have moved on to
other European countries.
(2)
9
March 22, 2012
(2)
9
March 22, 2012
(4)
1
March 22, 2012
Immigration
Immigration
UK
Volume
Worldwide
The UK has imposed tougher admission criteria for non-EU migrants, with the objective of reducing annual
immigration from the hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Employers seeking to hire non-EU
migrants are now subject to an annual quota and the "shortage occupation list" has been shrunk. Policies
have also been introduced that have made it difficult for foreign students to come to the UK as students. The
UK Home Office is also considering legislation that would prevent foreign workers earning below a certain
threshold to bring their families to the UK. However, employers and universities warn that such restrictions
may reduce future productivity and growth.
Remittances fell only 5.4% in 2009 compared to a 36 percent decline in foreign direct investment (FDI)
between 2008 and 2009 and a 73 percent decline in private debt and portfolio equity flows from their peak
in 2007.
Topic
Country
Volume
Worldwide
Fact
In line with a recovering but still fragile global economy, remittance flows to developing countries are
expected to increase in 2011-13, but at lower and more sustainable rates compared to the period prior to
the global financial crisis. World output is expected to grow at a slightly slower pace of about 4.5 percent
annually in 2011-12 compared to average growth of 5.0 percent during 2004-07 in the period before the
financial crisis. The advanced economies are forecast to grow at less than 3 percent annually during 201112.
The reduction in local currency value of remittances implies hardship for recipients, and increased pressure
on migrants to send more to maintain the purchasing power of their remittances. Among the largest ten
recipients of remittances in developing regions, four experienced a nominal appreciation of their currencies
against the US dollar. For instance, while remittances to India, the largest recipient in 2010, are estimated
Exchange Rates Developing Countries to have grown by 7.4 percent in US dollar terms, it experienced an almost flat growth of 1.5 percent in
local currency terms. Since India also had a relatively high rate of inflation in this period, the purchasing
power of remittances actually decreased by 10.4 percent.
Volume
Volume
United States
United States
Immigration
Australia
Immigration
Australia
Volume
Eastern Europe
Remittance flows to Latin America started recovering in 2011 with an incipient economic and labor market
recovery in the US and sectoral shifts in migrant employment. The pace of decline in flows to Latin
America slowed in the second half of 2010, and flows started growing again in the first quarter of 2011.
For Latin American countries with available remittance data for the first quarter of 2011 – Mexico,
Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua which together account for 70 percent of
remittance flows to the Latin America & Caribbean region – remittance inflows grew at 7.1% in the first
quarter of 2011 on a year on year basis. This rebound is remarkable particularly because remittances to the
region fell sharply by 12% in 2009 and remained close to flat in 2010.
The increase in remittance flows from the United States since the global financial crisis are mainly
attributable to a recovery in migrant employment in the United States and sectoral and geographical shifts
away from a still depressed construction sector toward growing manufacturing and services sectors.
Housing construction in the US has traditionally been a large employer of Hispanic migrants but continues
to remain depressed. The shift in migrant employment away from construction towards other sectors has
resulted in a decoupling of a relatively close correlation between US housing starts and remittance flows to
Mexico.
Resource-rich countries, such as Australia, that are benefiting from high global commodity prices are
planning to increase their intake of migrant workers. Australia is expected to have a shortage of 2.4 million
skilled and semi-skilled workers by 2015, with the mining sector reporting $250 billion in planned projects
experiencing a severe shortage of skilled workers. To fill skills gaps in the resources sector, Australia has
introduced Enterprise Migration Agreements (EMAs) available to large Australian companies with
minimum capital expenditures of 2 billion Australian dollars (US$2.1 billion), with no caps on the number
of workers brought in under these agreements.
Australia tightened restrictions on certain migration in 2011, reducing the number of occupations in its list
of General Skilled Migration program from 298 to 181.
Remittance inflows to Eastern European countries such as Poland (a major sender of migrants to the UK),
Romania and Bosnia & Herzegovina remained in negative territory in 2010.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(4)
1
March 22, 2012
(4)
10
March 22, 2012
(4)
3
March 22, 2012
(4)
3
March 22, 2012
(4)
5
March 22, 2012
(4)
8
March 22, 2012
(4)
8
March 22, 2012
Topic
Country
Immigration
UK
Immigration
Australia
Exchange Rates
Volume
Volume
Monitoring
Transaction
Method
Worldwide
Fact
There has been resistance among employers such as business associations and medical and academic
institutions facing shortages of workers and students. After implementing immigration caps in early 2010,
the UK responded to resistance from employers by adding exceptions to its cap to high skilled migrants
earning more than £150,000 per year.
With increasing perception of having unwelcoming labor markets, Australia saw a plunge in the number of
international students in its universities, and has commissioned a review of its student visa program.
Remittances fell in purchasing power terms in 2010 because of currency appreciation and inflation in
developing countries. The currencies of several large remittance-recipient countries have appreciated
relative to US dollar. Between March 2009 and March 2011, the currency of Mexico appreciated by 22
percent relative to the US dollar, India’s by 14 percent, and the Philippines’ by 11 percent . This
appreciation, combined with higher rates of inflation in developing countries, implies that migrants have to
send more in dollar terms to simply maintain the purchasing power of recipients. During the same period,
the Russian Ruble appreciated by 22 percent and the Euro by 8 percent implying larger flows to recipient
countries in US dollar terms than in local currency terms. This has cushioned to some extent remittance
flows to countries in Central Asia from Russia, and Africa and other regions that receive remittances from
countries in the Euro area.
Remittances flows to developing countries recovered to the pre-crisis level of $325 billion in 2010, but
have failed to keep up with rising prices and the appreciation of currencies of several large recipient
Developing Countries countries relative to the US dollar. While remittances grew 5.6 percent in US dollar terms in 2010, they
grew by a smaller 3.9 percent after accounting for exchange rate changes, and fell by 2.7 percent after
adjusting for inflation
Latin America
Worldwide
Worldwide
The largest decline in remittances adjusted for inflation in 2010 was for countries in the Latin America and
the Caribbean region, which experienced both sustained appreciation of their currencies with respect to the
US dollar and domestic inflation. While remittance flows to the Latin America region remained almost flat
in nominal US dollar terms, they declined by 2.9 percent after accounting for exchange rate changes, and
fell by 6.9 percent after adjusting for inflation. A similar decline the purchasing power of remittances was
observed for South Asian countries where high inflation (especially in India) converted an 8.2 percent
increase in US dollar terms to a decline of 6.3 percent in purchasing power terms.
Central banks are beginning to pay attention to new technologies and alternative channels when recording
remittance transactions. Transactions recorded as migrant remittance inflows are typically those through
banks, money transfer operators, and post offices. However, some central banks are beginning to record
transactions through new technologies such as debit and prepaid cards used at retail stores (Belarus, Cyprus,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Polond, and Uganda), transfers through mobile
phone (Indonesia, Mexico, and the Philippines), and even purchases of homes by migrants for beneficiaries
(Belarus, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Cyprus, Indonesia, Moldova, Niger, the Philippines, and Tunisia).
In remittance-receiving countries, banks are the most common type of RSP involved in transferring crossborder remittances, followed by money transfer operators, post offices, and exchange bureaus. In
remittance-sending countries, banks are also the most common providers of cross-border remittance
services, closely followed by money transfer operators, with exchange bureaus ranking third.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(4)
8
March 22, 2012
(4)
8
March 22, 2012
(4)
8
March 22, 2012
(4)
8
March 22, 2012
(4)
8
March 22, 2012
(5)
10
March 22, 2012
(5)
11
March 22, 2012
Topic
Country
Monitoring
Worldwide
Regulation
Regulation
Prices
Prices
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Fact
Data collection from non-bank RSPs appears to be influenced by the requirement for partnerships with
banks. Central banks are more likely to collect data from non-bank RSPs in countries that do not require a
non-bank RSP to partner with a bank. MTOs and post offices in developing countries are more likely to
report inflows to the central bank in countries that do not require non-bank RSPs to operate in partnerships
with banks.
Three-quarters of central banks in remittance-receiving countries reported being involved in developing or
implementing national policies related to AML-CFT. However, the central bank enforces sanctions in just
under one-third of the remittance-receiving countries, while a separate national authority specifically
charged with preventing money laundering enforces sanctions in 34% of these countries, and the ministry of
finance is involved in 19% of these countries. In nine (12% of) remittance-receiving countries, the first two
institutions work together to enforce sanctions; in three of these countries, the two institutions also work
together with the finance ministry. The ministry of finance is involved in enforcing anti-money-laundering
sanctions in nearly one-fifth of remittance-receiving countries. Other national or regional entities involved
in enforcing anti-money-laundering sanctions include the financial intelligence unit, the financial system
superintendency, the criminal prosecutor, the ministry of justice and anticorruption commission, and various
other judicial, anticorruption, and financial intelligence units.
In remittance-sending countries, just over half of central banks (19 out of 35) surveyed indicated that they
were involved in developing or implementing AML-CFT regulations. Central banks in considerably fewer
(just over one-fifth of) remittance-sending reported being involved in enforcing AML-CFT sanctions.
The majority of central bank respondents in both remittance-receiving and -sending countries cited high
cost as the top single factor inhibiting migrants from using formal channels for remittance transfers. After
high cost, lack of a bank branch near the intended recipient, and recipients'/senders' lack of access to bank
accounts, ranked as the second most cited impediments overall, although for remittance-receiving countries
recipients' mistrust of and/or lack of information on electronic transfers ranked nearly as highly. For
remittance-source countries, senders'/recipients' lack of valid ID ranked as highly. Notably, two-thirds of
the remittance-receiving countries' central banks and 46 percent of remittance-sending countries' central
banks cited factors that, taken together, indicate mistrust of/or lack of information on and access to
financial systems, products, and institutions are major factors inhibiting greater access to formal channels.
For the Sub-Saharan African countries' central banks that participated in the survey, high cost was most
often cited as the top factor inhibiting migrants from using formal channels for remittance transfers. 68% of
Sub-Saharan African countries' central banks cited high cost as a major inhibiting factor, while absence of a
bank branch near the beneficiary and recipients' lack of access to bank accounts were second- and thirdSub-Saharan Africa highest ranking factors (cited by 64% and 61%, respectively). Although central banks in Sub-Saharan
Africa reported the same top seven factors as inhibiting the use of formal channels as did all surveyed
countries, a correspondingly higher share of Sub-Saharan African respondents cited these factors, with the
exception of mistrust of/or lack of information on electronic transfers.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(5)
12
March 22, 2012
(5)
12
March 22, 2012
(5)
12
March 22, 2012
(5)
13
March 22, 2012
(5)
13
March 22, 2012
Topic
Country
Prices
Worldwide
Prices
Prices
Monitoring
Monitoring
Transaction
Method
Prices
Prices
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(5)
15
March 22, 2012
(5)
15
March 22, 2012
(5)
16
March 22, 2012
Sixty-five percent of central banks in remittance-receiving countries and 31 percent of central banks in
remittance-sending countries cited better statistics and studies on migration as the area most in need of
attention. Better statistics on remittances was cited by a similar share of respondents in both groups (61
percent and 29 percent, respectively).
(5)
16
March 22, 2012
A significantly higher share of central banks in Sub-Saharan Africa (79 percent) than in remittancereceiving countries as a while (65 percent) cited better statistics and studies on migration and better
Sub-Saharan Africa statistics on remittances as the areas most in need of attention for more efficient and secure transfer and
delivery of migrant remittances.
(5)
17
March 22, 2012
(5)
18
March 22, 2012
(5)
18
March 22, 2012
(5)
18
March 22, 2012
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Fact
69% of remittance-receiving countries that require an MTO to operate in partnership with a bank cited high
cost as a factor inhibiting the use of formal remittance channels, compared with 44% of countries that do
not require such a partnership. With the exception of the Bahamas, Oman, Portugal, Russia, and South
Africa, no remittance-sending country reported requiring MTOs to operate in a legal partnership with a
bank. Requiring MTOs and post offices to work in partnership with banks is usually associated with a
perception of high remittance costs. A high cost of remittance services, cited as the top factor inhibiting the
use of formal channels by a majority of central banks in developing countries, appears to be related to the
extent to which money transfer companies and post offices are required to operate in partnership with
banks in order to receive remittance inflows.
The share of central banks in remittance-receiving countries citing remittance costs as a factor inhibiting the
use of formal remittance channels is 12 percentage points higher in those countries where the recipients are
required to convert remittances into local currency than it is in countries that do not have a similar
conversion requirement. Tighter exchange controls are associated with the perception of high costs as a
factor inhibiting the use of formal remittance channels.
Legal requirements for non-bank providers of remittance services such as money transfer agencies,
exchange bureaus, and post offices to operate only in partnerships with banks are more common in
countries with tighter exchange controls. Greater freedom of money transfer agencies and post offices to
operate independently of banks can increase the degree of competition in the remittance market and thereby
put downward pressure on costs. Allowing a variety of well supervised and appropriately regulated RSPs
to operate, and liberalizing exchange controls such as requirements for compulsory conversion of
remittance inflows into local currency encourage the use of formal remittance channels, improve
competition in the remittance market, and reduce costs, ultimately benefitting the remittance receivers.
Just under one-third of remittance-receiving countries indicated that there are policy initiatives planned or
underway to expand the outreach of remittance services to rural areas. Developing new technologies for
remittance delivery - mobile phone, Internet, cash cards, ATM - was cited by one-quarter of those
indicating that they have such initiatives as the means of doing so.
Twenty-three percent of central banks in remittance-receiving countries reported having initiatives to
reduce costs, increase competition, and foster the use of formal channels.
With the goal of reducing costs, increasing competition, and fostering the use of formal channels the
following countries have introduced innovative initiatives. Bangladesh allows MFIs to deliver remittances
in rural areas in partnership with banks. It has also introduced an Automated Clearing and Settlement
Developing Countries System for faster, secure, and low-cost delivery of remittances. Ethiopia reported plans to allow institutions
such as post offices and MFIs to offer remittance services. Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Zambia are
encouraging more RSPs to enter the market.
Worldwide
Topic
Country
Prices
Albania
Prices
Prices
Prices
Transaction
Method
Prices
Regulation
Regulation
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(5)
18
March 22, 2012
(5)
18
March 22, 2012
(5)
19
March 22, 2012
(5)
19
March 22, 2012
(5)
2
March 22, 2012
Worldwide
A majority of central banks cite better statistics and studies on migration and remittances as the most
important areas in need of attention to improve the efficiency and security of remittance transfers. In SubSaharan Africa, nearly 80% of central banks cited better statistics and studies on migration and remittances
as the most important areas needing attention.
(5)
2
March 22, 2012
Worldwide
Anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML-CFT) appears to be a high priority
for countries participating in the survey, many of which have recently or are currently putting in place
institutional frameworks and regulations intended to better monitor suspicious cross-border transactions.
Despite this, there seems to be a lack of clarity in the actual application and enforcement of AML-CFT
regulations for remittance service providers (RSPs).
(5)
2
March 22, 2012
(5)
2
March 22, 2012
Philippines
Fact
The Albanian central bank has introduced an array of measures, including designing a communication
strategy to increase migrants' awareness of banking products and transfer services, instituting bilateral
agreements between domestic banks and their counterparts in important remittance source countries
(Greece and Italy), and encouraging the Albanian post office to establish cooperation arrangements with
post offices and postal savings banks in migrant host countries.
The Philippines' central bank has undertaken measures to increase the financial literacy of overseas Filipino
workers and their beneficiaries, such as holding seminars both locally in the Philippines and overseas,
which complement the predeparture orientation sessions given by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) that include providing information on available remittance channels as well as
savings and investment opportunities .
In Tajikistan, where migrant remittances are a large share of GDP, the central bank's efforts are aimed at
improving the public's trust in the banking system in order to increase the use of formal channels. Fiji and
Developing Countries Moldova also have programs to boost public awareness and financial literacy campaigns.
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Several remittance-source countries (26 percent) reported that they have initiatives to foster the use of
formal channels in remittance transfers. Germany and New Zealand have introduced websites that provide
information on available channels and costs for selected remittance corridors, which can foster transparency
and the use of formal remittance channels. Switzerland provides a brochure with similar information to
migrants. In Spain, the government is working together with associations of banks and saving institutions to
improve transparency and competition in the remittance market, reduce costs, and make it easier and
cheaper to send remittances. The Norwegian authorities are considering possible changes in regulations to
facilitate remittances. Russia has a public campaign underway to increase financial literacy.
High cost is perceived as the top single factor inhibiting migrants from using formal channels for remittance
transfers. A large majority of survey respondents also cited factors that, taken together, indicate mistrust of
or lack of information about financial systems, products, and channels.
The survey [of central banks] also revealed that migrant remittance inflows have been monitored for a
longer time, and in general are better monitored, than remittance outflows. In several countries, there are
large discrepancies in data reporting by different agencies. Although central banks are beginning to pay
attention to new technologies and alternative channels in recording remittance transactions, new entrants to
the market, such as mobile phone service providers, are not yet very active in cross-border remittance
transfers. Only four remittance-receiving countries reported the use of mobile phones in cross-border
remittance transfers at the time of the survey - May, 2008.
Topic
Country
Regulation
Worldwide
Regulation
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Worldwide
Worldwide
Fact
Remittance services provided by many of the newer market entrants tend to be unregulated. However, even
remittance transfer activities of as many as 6% of the commercial banks providing these services in
remittance-receiving countries and 11% of the commercial banks providing these services in remittancesending countries are not subject to any supervisory authority.
The existence of a legal requirement that money transfer operators (MTOs) partner with banks is associated
with high remittance costs in remittance-receiving countries. This relationship is more pronounced in SubSaharan Africa. Remittance costs also tend to be higher in countries where it is compulsory to convert
remittance proceeds into local currency.
Migrant remittance inflows are better monitored than migrant remittance outflows and recording of inflows
has occurred for a longer time. Nearly three-quarters of remittance-receiving countries reported that
collection of migrant remittances data began more than five years ago, with 56 percent of the countries
beginning collection of these data more than 11 years ago. In contrast, for remittance-sending countries, the
corresponding figures are lower: 60 percent and 51 percent, respectively.
In a number of remittance-receiving countries, including the Philippines and Rwanda, money transfer
operators (MTOs) do not report data and other information on remittance transfers directly to the central
bank or any other national institution. The main source of remittances data in most countries is the periodic
Developing Countries (ranging from daily to quarterly) reports submitted by commercial banks. In a number of cases, central
banks indicated that MTOs' remittances data are captured indirectly, in the reporting by banks with which
they operate in partnership (some countries have a legal requirement that MTOs partner with banks).
The most commonly cited method in remittance-receiving countries for estimating informal remittances was
propensity to remit and estimates based on data and information collected from household and/or overseas
migrant surveys. This method was cited by 42 percent of those central banks in countries where remittances
through informal channels are estimated. Estimating the share of remittances in overall foreign exchange
transaction volumes, including through surveys, was the next most commonly cited method in remittancereceiving countries for estimating informal remittances (24 percent). In Rwanda, for example, remittance
Developing Countries transfers through informal channels (hand-carried and other means not reported by the banks or money
transfer operators) have been estimated based on the information generated from surveys that try to
determine the origin of currency sold at exchange bureaus by Rwandan residents (that is, the share of
currency exchanged that originates from the diaspora), which is then multiplied by the volume of monthly
purchases by the exchange bureaus.
Data and information collected from household and/or overseas migrant surveys is the top-cited method for
estimating remittance transfers through informal channels: Propensity to remit & other estimates based on
households & overseas migrant surveys; Estimating remittances' share in total foreign exchange transaction
volumes; Estimates of cash carried across borders by visiting nationals at entry points; Estimates of cash
Developing Countries carried across borders by courier/transport companies, collected via surveys by national statistics agency;
Information provided by foreign embassies on labor permits issued to nationals abroad; Estimates based on
the number of workers abroad including via data provided by Department of Labor; "Expert estimates";
Information from newspapers; Estimates based on errors & omissions in the balance of payments.
GCC
Some major source countries for remittances, such as Saudi Arabia, do not report any remittance data in
their balance of payments reporting to the IMF.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(5)
2
March 22, 2012
(5)
2
March 22, 2012
(5)
5
March 22, 2012
(5)
5
March 22, 2012
(5)
7, 8
March 22, 2012
(5)
8
March 22, 2012
(5)
9
March 22, 2012
Topic
Country
Regulation
Worldwide
Transaction
Method
Worldwide
Underbanked
United States
GDP
GDP
Volume
Transaction
Method
El Salvador
Mexico
El Salvador
Volume
Worldwide
Transaction
Method
Worldwide
Immigration
Transaction
Method
Volume
Volume
Mexico
Worldwide
Worldwide
Fact
In 33 percent of the remittance-receiving countries where microfinance institutions operate and in one out
of the four remittance-receiving countries where mobile phone service providers operate, remittance
services provided by these types of institutions are not subject to any supervisory authority. There was no
supervisory institution for post offices undertaking these activities in 37% of the remittance-receiving
countries where they operate. Even the remittance services provided by commercial banks in 6% of
remittance-receiving countries are not subject to any supervisory authority. Money transfer operators'
remittance services are reportedly overseen by supervisory services in just over three-quarters of the
remittance-receiving countries in which they operate. In an even higher proportion of remittance-sending
countries, remittance outflows by banks and exchange bureaus are not supervised by any national entity.
Central banks are starting to record transfers through new remittance technologies and channels: 70%
record remittances through money transfer companies; 69% record electronic fund transfers through
correspondent banks; 47% record international money orders through post offices; 45% record
international money orders sent electronically; 42% record bank drafts; 30% record checks issued by banks
abroad; 29% record prepaid and debit cards; 5% record electronic transfer of remittances to the mobile
phone.
Approximately 35 to 45 million adult consumers in the U.S. have no credit history or credit files that are
too thin to be scored.
Remittances in El Salvador represent over 16% of GDP
Remittances represent over 2% of Mexico's GDP
More than 1.3 million people in El Salvador receive remittances
Mexicans and Central Americans are leading the trend of sending money via new technology with 13% of
remittance transactions being sent from a mobile phone
From 2001 to 2007, remittance receipts reported in the IMF's Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook
more than doubled to US$336 billion.
Wire transfer companies such as Western Union or Money Gram remain by far the most common means of
dispatching remittances with 70 percent of senders reporting that they use such firms. Banks are used by 11
percent while 17 percent of senders use informal means such as the mail or individuals who carry the funds
by hand.
There are approximately 200 million migrants from developing countries living outside their country of
origin. On average, remittances are sent 10 times a year. Rural areas receive 30 to 40 percent of
remittance flows. Remittance are equal to three times net Official Development Assistance to developing
countries. Up to 90 percent of remittance are spent on food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.
Thirty percent of remittance recipients currently use debit or credit cards (50 per cent in some countries).
Transferring remittances using mobile phone technology is becoming a cheaper means of transferring
money. In Uganda and Ghana, remittances have reduced the percentage of poor people by 11 per cent and
5 per cent respectively.
Resources flows to Developing Countries in 2009: foreign direct investment-359 billion, Remittances 307
Developing Countries billion, offi cial development assistance-120 billion, private debt and portfolio equity 85 billion.
Worldwide
Globally, top remittance-receiving countries in 2010 are: India $55 billion; China $51 billion; Mexico
$22.6 billion; Philippines $21.3 billion. Top Remittance Sending countries are United States $48.3 billion;
Saudi Arabia $26 billion; Switzerland $19.6 billion; Russian Federation $18.6 billion.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(5)
12
March 22, 2012
(5)
10
March 22, 2012
(7)
March 22, 2012
(8)
(9)
(16)
March 22, 2012
March 22, 2012
March 22, 2012
20
(23)
March 22, 2012
(12)
1
March 22, 2012
(22)
3, 4
March 22, 2012
(18)
3
March 22, 2012
(18)
3
March 22, 2012
(1)
17
March 22, 2012
(1)
13, 15
March 22, 2012
Topic
Country
Volume
Worldwide
Immigration
Latin America
Volume
Latin America
Transaction
Method
Worldwide
Volume
Worldwide
Volume
Worldwide
Prices
Latin America
Prices
Worldwide
Prices
Worldwide
Prices
Mexico-U.S.
Prices
Prices
Worldwide
Worldwide
Fact
Globally, The World Bank estimates that the worldwide volume of certain cash, asset, and in-kind transfers
made by migrants to developing countries reached $325 billion in 2010. The U.S. Bureau of economic
Analysis estimates that in 2010, $37.1 billion in cash and in-kind transfers were made from the U.S. to
foreign households by foreign born individuals who had spent one or more years here.
Latin America and Caribbean: Total emigrants: 30,403,000. Total Remittances US$67,905 million.
IMF's annual analysis of migrants' money transfers shows year-on- year growth of 6%. Latin American and
Caribbean migants sent $61 billion in remittances to their home countries last year, up 6 % from 57.6
billion in 2010.
Informal transfers are at least half as much as registered remittances. It has been estimated that between
US$100 and 300 billion are transferred informally each year.
Remittance costs have fallen steadily from 8.8 percent in 2008 to 7.3 percent in the third quarter of 2011.
However, remittance costs continue to remain high, especially in Africa and in small nations where
remittances provide a life line to the poor.
Source
Page Number
Date Accessed
(19)
5
March 22, 2012
(20)
March 22, 2012
(21)
March 22, 2012
(17)
2
March 22, 2012
(2)
1
March 22, 2012
The growth of remittance flows to developing countries is expected to continue at a rate of 7-8 percent
annually to reach $441 billion by 2014. Worldwide remittance flows, including those to high-income
countries, are expected to exceed $590 billion by 2014.
(2)
1
March 22, 2012
The total cost of sending remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean reached USD 4 billion in 2002.
That is about 12.5% of the total remittances. The mean value to send USD 200 was 6% through "ethnic
stores', 7% through banks and 12% through money transfer companies like Thomas Cook or Western
Union.
(14)
151
March 22, 2012
(15)
4
March 22, 2012
(10)
1
March 22, 2012
(10)
2
March 22, 2012
(13)
1
March 22, 2012
(11)
2
March 22, 2012
Reducing the cost to 5% of the amount remitted would free up more than a $1 billion next year for some of
the poorest households.
Although the cost of sending remittances is now much lower than in the late 1990s, the rate of decline has
slowed markedly in the past three years. Prices have dropped only slowly despite rapidly growing volume
and increased competition in the marketplace.
The cost of sending the amount of an average remittance to Mexico, now about $400, has come down
somewhat more quickly in recent years, from 6.29 percent of the amount sent in 2001 to 4.4 percent in
2004.
For sending USD 200, 1) The Global Average Total Cost increased from 8.89 percent in the 3Q 2010 to
9.30 percent in the 3Q 2011. 2) The average price of sending money from the G8 countries went up to 8.53
percent, from the 8.4 recorded on year ago. 3) Looking at the regional trends, the LAC region shows the
highest increase, from 6.82 percent in the last iteration to 7.68 percent in the 3Q 2011. 4) The global
average total cost for sending remittances through commercial banks was 13.68 percent in 3Q 2011. MTOs
lost their status of cheapest RSP type to the post offices. MTOs were charging on average 7.36 percent,
while post offices went down to 7.16 percent
By December 2005 the transaction cost paid by migrants to send US$200 to various countries in Latin
America had dropped to 5.6%. Moreover, when taking into account that the average individual transaction
amount is now US$300, the average cost incurred by senders is lower than 5%.