Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
practices of transnational migrants. Also part of many transnational
migrants' strategies are the obligatory transfers of remittances to fam-
ily, and their social and economic (monetary) investments in housing,
land, community projects, international business partnerships and
altruistic efforts. Such transfers and investments ensure their future
lives and livelihoods remain 'flexible' and appropriately practical as
they take advantage of their multiple transnational social links and
networks (Conway, 2007b; Vertovec, 2009).
The Migration-Development Nexus
Remittances
There is an upsurge of interest in the migration-development nexus of
relationships, because estimates of foreign currency deposits (though
conservative under-estimations of the full range of remittances, pocket
transfers, gifts in kind, cash exchanges and such) have demonstrated
the rapid growth in size and importance of remittance flows from
migrant donors to their countries of origin, during the last twenty-five
years (World Bank, 2011). Indeed, a 2008 IOM estimate indicated flows
of remittances were US$440 billion worldwide, of which US$330 billion
went to developing countries.
Alleviating poverty in the global South, remittances are person-to-
person flows that meet the immediate needs of family recipients, but also
contribute to savings and investment when sustained. With remittances
being spent locally to buy goods and services, this has a multiplier effect
in the recipients' communities. Remittances represent a direct invest-
ment in human capital as well as needed consumption and, with further
migration being financed as well, the reproduction of flows of remittances
can be assured. Remittances can also be altruistic transfers to commu-
nity and family to fulfil obligations, without repayment. On the negative
side, however, remittances may create migration-dependency, encourage
conspicuous consumption of luxury imports, and contribute locally to
wealth inequalities - where 'haves' and 'have nots' among recipient
households are distinguished by their overseas connections and family
member's propensities, rather than their own industry and work effort
while staying home (Cohen, 2005; Conway and Cohen, 1998; 2003;
Newland, 2007).
235
