Jason P. Schachter Senior Statistician, Bureau of Statistics, ILO Geneva

1. The Potential of Using Household Surveys to Improve the Measurement of International Migrant Remittance Data Jason P. Schachter Senior Statistician, Bureau of Statistics, ILO Geneva Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics Edinburgh, Scotland, November 20-22, 2006

2. Introduction • As international migration continues to grow, so will migrant worker remittances • Current remittance data is lacking • ILO is involved in a project to improve the measurement of international labour migration data, including migrant remittances, through the use of household surveys

3. Current state of remittance data • World Bank’s estimate of global remittances was 167 billion dollars for 2005 • Official estimates of remittances come from “Balance of Payments” (BOP) records reported to IMF by Central Banks • Actual amount likely to be much larger

4. What should be counted as remittances? • Currently no universal agreement on how to measure international migrant remittances (IMF defines as money sent by workers living abroad for more than one year) • Remittances can be: Monetary: Cash, Money transfers, Cheques, etc. In-Kind: Goods, Donations, Payments on behalf of others, etc. • Should remittances to non-family members be included? • In addition to international migrants, internal migrants also send remittances.

5. What BOP components are usually counted as international migrant remittances? • Worker remittances Private transfers between resident and non-resident households in other countries • Compensation of employees Income received by non-resident migrants (first year) • Migrant transfers Net worth of migrants transferred at initial time of migration (first year)

6. Some limitations of “Balance of Payment" remittance data • Inability of banks to distinguish between short-and long-term migrants (one-year residency) • Misses transactions made at non-bank locations (e.g. money transfer centres) • Lack of information about "informal" (e.g. hand-carried) or “in-kind” (e.g. goods) remittances • Inconsistent recording and reporting practices of BOP between, and even within, countries over time • Inability to identify flows (where remittances go)

7. How can household surveys help measure remittances? • Improved measurement of the true “size” of remittances by collecting information missing from current methods (i.e. non-bank transactions, informal and “in-kind” remittances, etc.), and adjusting BOP totals accordingly • Measurement of the characteristics of migrants (remittance senders and receivers) • Measurement of the impact of remittances

8. Advantages of using Labour Force Surveys • Large and nationally representative sample size • Conducted regularly • Labour force (and other) characteristics already included on survey • Using a pre-existing survey infrastructure is less costly than using a specialized survey to collect the same information

9. Possible disadvantages to using Labour Force (and household) Surveys • Some LFS exclude foreigners and/or GQ populations (which often house temporary migrants) • Non-response, particularly for “illegal” migrants (hard-to-find population) • Insufficient number of cases, particularly in countries with few migrants, since using a sample of the population to measure a relatively rare event (migration) • Data recall and accuracy, especially for money-related information • Additional questions could increase respondent burden • Cost of adding (and sustaining) additional questions • The LFS is an inappropriate vehicle to ask migration questions (better to use a specialized survey)?

10. ILO’s Migration Module Project • ILO has developed a “large” migration module for attachment to household surveys (with over 200 questions) • Currently testing a limited number of questions in both Armenia and Thailand • In addition to remittances, the module measures other dimensions of migration like: country of birth/citizenship, migration history, reasons for moving, migration networks, pre-migration characteristics, methods of finding employment, and current labour force situation

11. Project goals • Improve the collection of international labour migration statistics by: • Creating questions which effectively measure dimensions of labour migration and can be added to pre-existing or new household surveys • Developing questions that can be used by multiple countries • Increasing international dialogue about migration statistics • Limitation: does not include internal migrants’ remittances

12. The project in Thailand (short version) • Twenty questions added to pre-existing LFS migration module (started in 2005) • 15,000 households in test sample • Examples of questions added: country of birth/citizenship, year of first and most recent entry, methods used to send goods and remittances, and several questions about remittances received • Currently in the field (Oct-Dec), with results expected by early next year

13. The project in Armenia (long version) • Republic of Armenia’s LFS began in 1996 • Armenia’s LFS does not currently include any migration-related questions • Tested over 40 questions • Questions were not included on the regular LFS, but were rather tested as a separate survey (to increase efficiency in fieldwork organization, monitoring, and data processing)

14. Data collection/processing • 1,985 households sampled (2006 LFS has 3,000 in sample) • Used sampling frame from the 2001 Armenian Census, representative of Armenia’s 11 marz administrative and territorial divisions • Data collection and processing completed, beginning to tabulate results

15. ARMENIA MIGRATION SURVEY Q U E S T I O N N A I R E GENERAL INFORMATION ON HOUSEHOLD PART A.

16. PART D: General Information on Household Collects information about household members’: • Age • Sex • Educational attainment • Marital status • Country of birth/citizenship • If lived in another country for more than 3 months since 1990?

17. PART E: Migration Historyand Remittances(return migrants) • Last country lived in for longer than 3 months? • When first moved to that country? • Whenmost recently came back to live in Armenia? • If ever worked while living abroad? • If ever sent money or goods back to friends or relatives in Armenia?

18. PART F: Remittances Received • Do any household members who previously resided in this household currently live abroad? • In what country does he/she live? • When moved to COUNTRY? • If ever sent money home? • If currently works?

19. PART F (cont.) • When was money first sent? • When was money last sent? • Over the past 12 months, how many times have you received money from this person? • Over the past 12 months, what is the total value of money you have received from this person?

20. PART G: Received Remittances from non-H/H Member • Relationship to household head • In what country do(es) they (he/she) live? • If currently works? • First and last time received money from this person? • Over the past 12 months, how many times and total amount of money received from this person?

21. PART H:Remittances Received from all Sources • Methods used most frequently to send money to your household over the past 12 months • Considering money received over the past 12 months, did the money enable you or other h/h members to do any of the following? • Apart from money, have you or any other household members received any goods from someone living abroad over the past 12 months? • What items (including food) have you received over the past 12 months, what was their estimated value, and how were these items sent or brought to you

22. Some preliminary results (Part D) • Of 1,985 households sampled, 65% Urban • Resulted in 5,200 respondents, excluding long-term absences • 94% Born in Armenia, 99% Armenian citizens • 1,117 people absent for 3 months or more (73% male)

23. Preliminary results (Part E)- Return Migrants • 593 return migrants • 68% were male • Country of last residence: 76% Russia, 7% Ukraine, 4% USA • 64% worked while abroad • 54% sent money or goods home while abroad (Of those who worked while abroad, 79% sent money or goods)

24. Preliminary results (Part F)- HHLD member living abroad • 512 household members living abroad • 79% male and 70% between the ages of 25 and 49 (compared to 38% of RA respondents) • 71% married • Current country of residence: 84% Russia, 2% Ukraine, 2% USA

25. Part F (continued) • 65% ever sent money home (remitters) • 64% currently working (18% not work, 18% DK) • 76% of those who sent money did so within first 12 months of being away • 91.7% of remitters were male • Of remitters, over past 12 months, 50% sent money two to three times, 31% one time, and 19% four times or more • Most remitters (72%) sent $800 or less over the past 12 months

26. Some final thoughts • Jury still out on project --Meanwhile, ILO would like to expand the project in 2007 to include 3 new countries in Africa and Latin America-- • A few difficulties developing migration questions --how to measure net and in-kind remittances, which time reference to use (miss some temporary labour migrants) • Need more specifics about how results could be applied to improve BOP estimates –computation of total amount, modelling procedures, what specific data needs to be collected (e.g. ideally amount of money sent via different sources, not just sources used)

27. Contact Information Jason Schachter, Ph.D Bureau of Statistics, Room 5-51 4, Route des Morillons CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland Phone: +41 (0)22 799 6954 E-mail: g1stat@ilo.org