Remittances – How
Diaspora Drives Economies

Remittances differ from other capital flows
in that they often flow to the poorest communities, and in many cases, they are
received by women. The economic effects of remittance flows are mostly
positive, though there can be negative effects and some risks too.
On the whole, remittances from migrant workers lead to lower inequality within
a country. Since these payments are received by the poorest communities, they
can also stimulate local economies, often in remote areas. In many cases, they
can also lead to improved nutrition and healthcare in these communities.
On a national level, remittances can cushion the effects of economic shocks to
a country’s economy. Because they are recorded as income on the balance of
payments account, they improve the strength of a country’s currency.
The negative effects are less obvious. In some cases, communities can become
overly dependent on remittances from relatives working in other countries. This
can discourage people in these communities from trying to support themselves.
Migration can also lead to a “brain drain” , it’s usually the best qualified
and most entrepreneurial citizens that seek opportunity elsewhere. If skilled
people work abroad, they can provide vital support to their families back home.
But, some economists believe local economies suffer more in the long run
without these people.
Over the last few years, we have seen a backlash against immigration in some of
the host countries. Immigration has been a central theme of the political
agenda in both Europe and the US and contributed to Donald Trump’s election and
the UK’s decision to leave the EU. In South Africa, perceptions about
immigrants led to violent protests and a series of xenophobic attacks. While it
can be argued that these sentiments are more a matter of perception than
reality, they can still lead to strained international relations and
potentially be detrimental to trade.
The effects of remittances on a country’s GDP depend on how the money is spent.
If recipients invest the money they receive on building small businesses,
overall productivity is improved. On the other hand, if the money is spent only
on consumption, there is no immediate benefit to a country’s economy. If
consumption increases without a corresponding increase in productivity, imports
increase and the money flows straight back out of the economy. Several studies have
actually shown that remittances don’t
necessarily lead to an increase in economic growth. UN economists have said
that remittances would be more beneficial if they could be channelled into local infrastructure
projects or vocational training.
For some time, FinTech companies in Africa, have been building remittance
products and services. Can these FinTechs also improve the effect remittances
have on local economies?
The immediate opportunity lies in reducing the cost of remitting money. Fintech
companies are already offering money transfer services at close to half the cost charged by
banks, but there is room for further improvement. Lower fees being
paid to intermediaries means more money goes to local communities.
The remittance industry is becoming closely connected with the microlending
industry and there are several opportunities for remittances to be leveraged to
obtain credit, or even used to earn interest. For example, the records of cash
transfers from overseas can be used to obtain a loan. And, if remittances can
be saved in a mobile wallet, these balances can be used to extend loans to
other local community members. Indian economist, Dilip Ratha, has suggested
that a people’s bank could be structured around the remittance platform in each
community.
Besides reducing costs and extending credit, the effect of remittances can be
improved if they are directed into investment in local infrastructure, building
small businesses, education and training. This may be where the next wave of
fintech opportunities exist – and how they are set to compete with the banks
The FinTech revolution in Africa has been dominated by the potential of mobile
technology. Many people in Africa still don’t have a traditional bank account,
and many have never had access to a terrestrial phone line. It’s not
surprising, therefore, that mobile phones have been central to many of the
solutions to both problems. Mobile penetration in Africa is either very high,
or rising rapidly, and gives millions of people access to payment services,
mobile wallets and of course a means of communication. It’s therefore likely
that the full potential of remittances might also revolve around mobile
devices.
The other technology beginning to impact the remittance landscape is blockchain
technology. In fact, the most compelling use case for Bitcoin is long distance
money transfers. Several start-ups in Africa are using Bitcoin and other
blockchain technologies to create remittance platforms, and many of these are
also based on mobile devices.
The challenge to FinTechs going forward will be to find ways to allow
communities to leverage the cashflows they are receiving to develop their local
economies. Besides microlending services, they could offer education and
training content. They could also give those remitting funds control over the
way the money is being used. Read our blog on the African Payments
Landscape
If FinTech companies can identify ways to help communities build businesses,
infrastructure and educational resources, they can entrench themselves as a
vital cog in these local economies. If that were to happen it would also mean
FinTechs had succeeded where many banks and aid programs had failed.]
Comments
Post a Comment