Lecture 9 Flashcards
‘Brucker et al., (2013)
Shows Dominica, Tonga and Guyana have the 3 largest emigration rates all above 48.5% of the population to OCED destinations. (with almost all of the population with tertiary education leaving Guyana)
‘Mishra, (2007)’
’ imperially examines the labour market effects of emigration on an individual level, measuring the effect of migration from Mexico to the US on Mexican wages from 1970-2000.Mexico has been greatly affected by emigration with 16% of Mexican workforce having emigrated in 2000. Emigration appears to increase the wages of non-immigrant population a 10% increase in emigrant share within a cell is associated with a 3.2-3.4% increase in non-migrant wage using a IV estimate. Total welfare loss from emigration amounted to 0.5% of Mexican GDP. The gain to works who did not emigrate amounts to 5.9% of GDP and the loss to capital owners is 6.4%.
‘Elsner, (2013)’
Lithuania study after the enlargement of the EU in 2004. After this 9% Lithuania’s moved to UK & Ireland. In this paper they find no selection bias occurring but 10% increase in emigration leads to 7% increase in wages in Lithuania. Very significant change for men but not a very big change seen for women. If 5% Lithuanian workforce migrate permanentantly paper predicts wages will increase 3.3% over 5 years 8% of the total wage increase .
‘Aycienena et al., (2010)’
Look at how remittances respond to changes in the sending price focusing on Salvadoran migrants living in Washington DC areas. Typical costs of sending $1,500 or less to El Salvador is a flat fee of $9-$10. Found once offering discounts that for every $1 reduction in fees lead to an additional 0.11 transactions a month but didn’t change the amount remitted each time. Shows remittances are very responsive to prices
‘Yang., (2011)’
Proposes why migrants remit so often but don’t just remit in a single large sum. Initially migrants will send all the money initially back to source nation, to help accumulate initial savings. Self-control issues of the sender to personally spend it instead of as remittances. Safety against losing money or theft, less risky when dealing with smaller sums of money.
‘Yang, (2008)’
Found remittances increased chances of starting capital intensive business, and ownership of durable goods
‘Adams and Page., (2005)
Conduct a cross-country study to examine the relationship between remittances and poverty rates. Found countries with higher inequality are predicted to have higher poverty rates & countries with higher average incomes have lower poverty rates.
10% increase in the emigrant share of the population leads to 1.4% decline in poverty share & a 10% increase in per capita remittances leads to a 1.8% decline in the poverty rate
‘Aggarwal et al., (2011)
Find a positive link between remittance inflows and financial development in the recipient country. Remittances tend to be lumpy & recipients may need to use financial services to safely store these remittances and if recipients receive remittances through a bank they will become more familiar with the system and more likely to use financial systems
‘Ebeke., (2014)
Finds countries with weak institutions & remittance inflows reduced public spending on health and education.
‘Clemens and Mackenzie., (2014)’
’Proposed remittances have not appeared to impact economic growth because of how they are recorded this growth may be due to remittance flows becoming more accurately measured In Mexico between 1990-2000 they found that 79% of growth in remittances was due to measurement changes.
‘Yang and Choi, (2007)’
’’ Philippine example due remittances sent overseas act as a insurance for recipient households. Looking if income changes lead to a change in remittances in the other direction. Roughly 60% of declines in household income are replaced by remittance inflows a informal way of social insurance for the household. Find household members with migrant family have unchanged consumption in the face of shocks but consumption responds strongly to income shocks for households without migrants.
‘Alcaraz et al., (2012)’
Link between remittances from the US to Mexico & years of education for children in Mexico. During the period of the financial crisis(2008) remittance flows dropped 20% from 2nd quarter 2008-1st quarter 2009 and household receiving remittance fell from 4.3%-3.4%). If a family were recipients of remittances when the financial crisis came, and the flow of remittances slowed it increased the chances of the child working by 9.8% & reduced school attendance by 15.6% primarily driven by the actions of families in rural communities. Mexicans were heavily reliant on remittances & when they disappeared they struggled to cope financially with their income levels.
