Il faudrait au préalable comprendre le lien économique entre remises et croissance.

pour ce faire il faudrait au moins à trois questions :

1/ le poids des remises dans l'économie des pays d'origine;

2/ l'utilisation effective de ces remises;

3/ la répartition spatiale des ces remises dans les pays d'origine. Ne faudrait-il pas aller rechercher le lien entre remises et croissance au niveau local plutôt qu'au niveau national.

Dear Nacer-Eddine,

Thank you for your reply. Your recommendation on the impact of remittances on local development seems to me relevant....

ISSUE: Effect of remittance on economic growth

REMITTANCE: the term cannot be lumped into one package. There are several sources of remittances: (i) state investment, (ii) corporate proceeds, and (iii) non-corporate remittance.

   National government generally purchases bonds of other government. For instance, china holds a substantial amount of US bond. If the bond is paid, the interest is remitted to china. This will be recorded in the national account as “government income from investment.” This interest income will be counted as the state’s revenue and will be used for state expenses, i.e. social welfare, defense, police, etc. These expenses are part of G in the GDP equation. It may create jobs, additional income, and, thus, consumption. However, the effect of the original remittance (interest earned from US bond) now becomes far removed---thus difficult to measure which social utility resulted from that remittance. Simple “tracing” and “vouching” become difficult to accomplish.

   Corporate proceeds, i.e. corporations operating overseas remitting profit to the home country is counted as remittance. The “disappearance” of its remittance identity happens more quickly than in the case of the state investment. Assume there is no double tax treaty, part of the proceeds is tax liability which is the state revenue (a small part, i.e. 30% or so)---this is counted as part of government revenue. The remaining goes to the corporate account. If there is a bilateral tax treaty, if the overseas tax is equal to or exceeds the home country’s rate, then there is no tax liability and thus no corporate tax due as state revenue. The proceeds now go into the corporate account. Assume all expenses are deducted and now the dividends are paid to shareholders and the remainder is used for retained earning and part of it for-reinvestment (domestically and overseas). By the time the corporate remittance finds its way into the economy, it has change hands several times and it is difficult to find it in the GDP equation—whether in C, C, or G?

The third type of remittance is the easier to measure--that is individual remittance, i.e. citizens working abroad and sending the earnings to the home country. In many underdeveloped and developing economies, it is common to see workers go to another country to earn money and send home, i.e. construction workers from Thailand working in the Middle East or Indian Software engineer working for a phone company in Finland and send money home to India. In both cases, Thailand and India receives remittance. How can the effect of these proceeds be measured? It is not easy, but it is easier than the two previous cases. Individual families receiving remittance could either spend—in which case it may be accounted for in the C (consumption); or the families may save. It is saved in the bank, the amount would not be large since some of it is spent for daily expenses, it will be captured as part of total national savings (this population may be identified as remittance account---if banks of cooperative in supplying the data).

ACCOUNTING FOR THE EFFECT OF REMITTANCE: this is not an easy task because remittance is considered a micro-economic transaction, i.e. interest earned from government investment, corporate proceeds remitting to the HQ or workers remitting his excess earnings to family at home. The effect on GDP growth is an attempt to measure macroeconomic effect. The economic webs that link micro transaction to macro effect is a challenge in econometric. In fact, it is an interesting research topic: (i) how does on trace a macro effect to micro transaction? and (ii) how does one vouch a micro transaction to a macro effect?

Thank you for  answer and explanations ...

I am preparing a paper on the impact of remittances (international) on growth in MENA countries.

Results will be discussed when the paper is finished.

Again thank you.

There are many reasons to the unambiguous relationship between remittances and economic growth. Some results are related to the techniques , the data and the variables used. Other results are related to importance of remittances in the economy and the manner of their utilization in the country studied. 

The problem is complex and multidimensional, I can summarized as follows:

According to the official data, remittances comprise workers’ remittances, compensation of employees, and migrant transfers. 

 Moreover, even when one uses a common definition of migrants’ remittances, there are still a number of important issues that may explain the contradictory findings of studies on the growth-remittances link.

- First, for Clemens and McKenzie (2014), the growth of remittances should depend on the growth in migration stocks, and on the growth in the incomes that these migrants earn. They estimate that 79% of the growth in remittances received by developing countries over the 1990 to 2010 period reflects changes in measurement.

- Second, the growth of remittances may be due to a recent decrease of the cost of sending remittances which can made formal channels more attractive to migrants than previously.

- Third, the ambiguous effect of remittances on growth in the literature stems from an endogeneity problem (inverse causality). Hence the problem of choosing good instruments; that's another story!

refer to

A Spatial Approach to the Link between Remittances

and Regional Growth in Mexico

http://www.colef.mx/migracionesinternacionales/revistas/MI18/n18-007-041.pdf

or

Remittances and Economic Development in

Somalia

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCPR/Resources/WP38_web.pdf

Thank you for  answer and references....

The problem is the question of how remittances are ultimately spent or saved or invested in the country of origin.  Answering this question would obviously depend on the economic conditions in that country at a given point in time. Are the funds being directed towards maintenance or entrepreneurial activities, consumption goods or food.

There is greater ambiguity when thinking of remittances from the GCC countries to the Indian subcontinent.  What proportion of the remittances are actually measured, for example, and how much is taken by employment agencies. 

Just a few thoughts..

Thank you Michael for your prompt reply, it is true that individual  

characteristics play a powerful role in the relationship. The panel  

studies, for example, do not take into account these  

characteristics. Hence, the importance of working at regional and sub-regional levels, such as remittances from the GCC Countries to the Indian subcontinent.

It is a gradual process.

Remittances help recipient households to increase spending on essential goods and services, invest in healthcare and education, as well as allow them to build their assets, both liquid (cash) and fixed (property), enhancing access to financial services and investment opportunities.