The hidden force in global economics: sending money home

I live in Washington, D.C.

But I grew up in Sindhekela, a village in Orissa
in India.

My father was a government worker.

My mother could not read or write, but she

would say to me, "A king is worshiped only in his

own kingdom. A poet is respected everywhere."

So I wanted to be a poet when I grew up.

But I almost didn't go to college

until an aunt offered financial help.

I went to study in ___,

the largest town in the region,

where, already in college, I saw a
television for the first time.

I had dreams of going to the United States

for higher studies.

When the opportunity came,

I crossed two oceans, with borrowed money

for airfare, and only a 20 dollar bill in my pocket.

In the U.S., I worked in a research center,

part-time, while taking graduate classes in economics

and with the little I earned, I would

finance myself and then I would send

money home to my brother and mother.

My story is not unique.

There are millions of people who migrate each year.

With the help of the family, they cross oceans,

they cross deserts, they cross rivers, they cross mountains.

They risk their lives to realize a dream,

that dream is as simple as having a

decent job so they can send money home

and help the family,

which has helped them before.

There are 232 million international migrants in the world.

These are people who live in a country

other than their country of birth.

If there was a country made up of

only international migrants,

that would be larger in population

than Brazil.

That would be larger in its size

of the economy than France.

Some 180 million of them, from poor countries,

send money home regularly.

Those sums of money are called remittences.

Here is a fact that might surprise you:

413 billion dollars, 413 billion dollars

was the amount of remittences sent last year

by migrants to developing countries.

Migrants from developing countries,

money sent to developing countries--

413 billion dollars.

That's a remarkable number

that is three times the size of

the total of development aid money.

And yet, you and I,

my colleagues in Washington,

we endlessly debate and

discuss about development aid

while we ignore remittences as small change.

True, people send 200 dollars per month

on average, but repeated month after month,

by millions of people,

sums of money add up to rivers
of foreign currency.

So, India last year received 72 billion dollars, larger than

its IT exports.

Egypt, in Egypt remittences are three times

the size of revenues from the Suez Canal.

In Tajikistan, remittences are forty-two percent of GDP.

In poorer countries, smaller countries, conflict

afflicted countries, remittences are a lifeline,

as in Somalia or in Haiti.

No wonder these flows have huge

impacts on economies and on poor people.

Remittences, unlike private investment money,

they don't flow back at the first

sign of trouble in the country.

They actually act like an insurance.

When the family is in trouble,

facing hardship, facing hard times,

remittences increase, they act like an insurance.

Migrants send more money then.

Unlike development aid money,

that must go through official agencies

and governments, remittences

directly reach the poor,

reach the family,

and often with business advice.

So, in Nepal, the share of poor

people was forty-two percent in 1995,

the share of poor people in the population.

By 2005, it declined later, at a

time of political crisis, economic crisis.

The share of poor people went down to thirty-one percent.

That decline in poverty, most of it,

about half of it, is believed to be

because of remittences from India,

a poor country.

In El Salvador, the school dropout

rate among children is lower

in families that receive remittences.

In Mexico and Sri Lanka,

the birth weight of children is higher

among families that receive remittences.

Remittences are dollars wrapped with care.

Migrants send money home for food,

for buying necessities, for building houses,

for funding education, for funding

healthcare for the elderly, for business

investments for friends and family.

Migrants send even more money home

for special occasions like a surgery

or a wedding. And migrants also send

money, perhaps far too many times,

for unexpected funerals that

they cannot attend.

Much as these flows do all that good,

there are barriers to these

flows of remittences, these

400 billion dollars of remittences.

Foremost among them is

the exorbitant costs of sending money home.

Money transfer companies structure

their fees to milk the poor.

They will say, "up to 500 dollars

that you want to send, we will charge you

30 dollars fixed."

If you are poor and have only 200 dollars to send,

you have to pay that 30 dollar fee.

The global average cost of sending

money is eight percent.

That means you send 100 dollars,

the family on the other side receives only

92 dollars.

To send money to Africa,

the cost is even higher:

twelve percent.

To send money within Africa,

the cost is even higher:

over twenty percent.

For example, sending money from Benin
to Nigeria.

And then there is the case of Venezuela, where,

because of exchange controls,

you send 100 dollars and you

are lucky if the family on the other side

receives even 10 dollars.

Of course, nobody sends money to Venezuela

through the official channel.

It all goes in suitcases.

Whereever costs are high,

money goes underground.

And what is worse,

many developing countries actually

have a blanket ban on sending money

out of the country.

Many rich nations also have a

blanket-ban on sending money
to specific countries.

So, is it that there are no options,

no better options to send money?

There are.

Mpesa in Kenya enables people to send money

and receive money at a fixed cost of only

60 cents per transaction.

U.S. Fed started a program with Mexico

to enable money service businesses

to send money to Mexico

for a fixed cost of only 67 cents per transaction.

And yet, these faster, cheaper, better options

can't be applied internationally

because of the fear of money laundering,

even though there is little data

to support any connection, any significant

connection between money laundering

and these small remittence transactions.

Many international banks now

are weary of hosting bank accounts of

money service businesses, especially

those serving Somalia.

Somalia, a country where the

part-time income is only 250 dollars per year, 250 dollars per year.

Monthly remittences, on average, to Somalia

is larger than that amount.

Remittences are the lifeblood of Somalia.

And yet, this is an example of the right

hand getting a lot of aid,

while the left is cutting the lifeblood

to that economy, through regulations.

Then there is the case of poor people
from villages, like me.

In the villages, the only place where you can

get money is through the Post Office.

Most of the governments in the world

have allowed their post offices to have

exclusive partnership with money transfer companies.

So, if I have to send money to my

father in the village, I must send money

through that particular money transfer company,

even if the cost is high.

I cannot go to a cheaper option.

This has to go.

So, what can international organizations,

social entrepreneurs do to reduce [the] cost

of sending money home?

First, relax regulations on small remittances
under 1000 dollars.

Governments should recognize that

small remittances are not money laundering.

Second,