International Migrants’ Remittances and Welfare Status of the Left-Behind Families in Turkey

Abstract

In this study, micro implications of remittances are examined based on the data from the 1996 Turkish International Migration Survey (TIMS‐96), part of a comprehensive study of Eurostat and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI). Results of the study imply that migrant savings are generally used for satisfying basic consumption needs. Patterns of expenditures suggest that for 12 percent of all the households receiving remittances, about 80 percent used remittances to improve their standard of living. Considering the variation by regions, it is observed that households in less‐developed regions spent more on daily expenses than those in developed regions. This suggests that daily expenses of households in less developed regions depend significantly on remittances received by households. Moreover, remittances have a positive impact on household welfare; households receiving remittances are found to be better off than nonremitting households. This suggests that migration and remittances have positive indirect effects on incomes of emigrant households. A considerable part of the relevant literature argues that remittances are mostly spent on consumption, housing and land and are not used for productive investment that would contribute to long‐run development. This conclusion often rests on arbitrary definitions of “productive investments.” Access to better nutrition and allocation of more resources to education are, without question, forms of productive investment. Although emigration does not serve as a solution to the problems of national development, it is evident that remittances generate considerable welfare effects, at least for the remittance‐receiving population.

Labor Migration, Remittances and Economic Well-being of Households in the Philippines

“…For example, Itzigsohn (1995) found that in Dominican Republic remittances constitute nearly 40% of the total income of households with labor migrants and in Jamaica, remittances constitute about third of total household income. Moreover, the economic standing (measured by total income and by standard of living) of households that receive remittances is higher than the economic standing of households without labor migrants (Koc and Onan 2004;Itzigsohn 1995). Indeed, households in labor-sending societies use remittances for improvement of standard of living and for economic mobility (Itzigsohn 1995;Zlotnik 1990;Eelens and Speckmann 1990).…”

“…Substantial portions of their earnings are remitted to family members left behind (Semyonov and Gorodzeisky 2005). The remittances are often used to combat poverty and to overcome economic hardships in place of origin and help family members to raise standard of living and to improve quality of life (Koc and Onan 2004;Itzigsohn 1995;Findley 1994;Eelens and Speckmann 1990;Zlotnik 1990). From this point of view, labor migration is viewed, indeed, as a rational economic survival strategy of some poor but mostly lower middleincome households in less developed countries (e.g.…”

Long-Term Benefits from Temporary Migration: Does the Gender of the Migrant Matter?

“…This is in contrast to the literature that, barring a few exceptions (Calero, Bedi, and Sparrow 2009;Cortes 2011), has by and large treated educational expenditure as a form of consumption rather than as a "productive investment" since it does not result in the immediate employment of resources (Koc and Onan 2004). Our proxy for educational investments is the expenditure share on schooling.…”

“…Unskilled, domestic work provides few opportunities for human capital accumulation and transfer of knowledge that women can utilize following their return home. Lack of financial literacy and social capital, limited opportunities for business investments, and cultural and institutional barriers also constrain the ability of female return migrants to invest remittances productively in selfemployment and asset markets (Koc and Onan 2004). In households that are left behind, the absence of the primary caregiver may inhibit the wellbeing and long-term health and education prospects of the children (Cortes 2011;McKenzie and Rapoport 2011) and intra-household bargaining problems may divert migrant earnings toward uses preferred by other household members (Guzman, Morrison, and Sjöblom 2008;Ashraf et al 2011;Chin, Karkoviata, and Wilcox 2011).…”

Does Migration Reduce the Household Poverty in Nepal?

“…During the period 1950s and 1960s, optimistic (developmentalist and neoclassical) school of thought argues that remittances have positive effects on poverty reduction of the receiving areas. This school of thought focus that remittance is the important factor for increasing living standards and economic condition of the poor without considering whether the remittances are used for consumption, buying house or other investment (Zachariah et al, 2001;Koc, 2004;Adams, 2005;World Bank, 2007, Acosta et al, 2007. Contrary to the optimistic views, the pessimistic school of thought argued that remittances have negative effect on poverty.…”