migration as enabler of inclusive social development
TRANSCRIPT
For a Hungry Cities Partnership Symposium on
“NEW DIRECTIONS IN SOUTH-SOUTH MIGRATION”
at the Balsillie School of International Affairs
Waterloo, Canada November 19-20, 2019
Migration as enabler of inclusive social
development? Focus on food security as an Indicator
by
Elizabeth Thomas-Hope The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica
} Population (2016) 2.73 millions } High Human Development (2015) HDI 0.73 } Stock of emigrants as percentage of
population (2016) 45 } Stock of immigrants as percentage of
population (2013) 1.3 (Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 2016)
257
201
170 177
116
14 4 3 31
16
57 34 39
22 16
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010-2015
Tota
l Jam
aica
n M
igat
ion
Thou
sand
s
USA UK CANADA
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1995-1999 2000-2009 2010-2016
Num
ber o
f dep
orte
es
USA Canada UK Others
} Remittances – foreign exchange, widening markets
} Migration considered positive – freedom to make choices, broaden experience
} Employment opportunities } Household economic survival
1,700.00
1,800.00
1,900.00
2,000.00
2,100.00
2,200.00
2,300.00
2,400.00
Rem
ittan
ces
in th
ousa
nds
USD
Bank of Jamaica World Bank
14.9
15.3
14.6 14.6
14.2 14 13.9
14.6
15.5
16.1
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
16
16.5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Amou
nt a
s %
of G
DP
12,005.40
3,661.10
2,073.20 1,384.00 1,358.90
-1,900.00
100.00
2,100.00
4,100.00
6,100.00
8,100.00
10,100.00
12,100.00
USA UK Canada Cayman Islands
Others
USD
mill
ions
Sources:BankofJamaica,RemittanceReports,(November2008,November2009,November2010,November2011,December2013,December2016).
9%
18% 6%
9% 1%
14%
19% 4% 7% 2% 1%
10%
Saving Food Investment/Business Housing House construction Education Utilities Transportation Medical Received on behalf of Sender Clothing & Shoes Other
Ramocan, 2011
KMA 24%
Other Towns 52%
Rural Areas 24%
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014
Poorest
2
3
4
Richest
Source: STATIN, JSLC, 2014
21.2
30.4
26 28.7
32.2 34.7
32.4 32.5 34.6
39.6
43.4
54.9
48.6 48.3 49.3 50.9 51.5
47.3 50.4
56.9
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015
Per c
ent
Households Receiving Remittances by Quintile (2005 - 2015)
Poorest Richest
Havendale
Harbour View
Nannyville Seaview Gdns
Rae Town
Port Royal
Elletson Flats
Sample location
33.8
16.8
30.6
17
1.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
female centered
male centered
nuclear extended other
% of
sam
ple
19
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
this city
another urban area in this country
rural area in this country
foreign country
% of Sample
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
self-employed working full-time
working part-time/casual/unemployed and looking for
unemployed and not looking for housewife pensioner
medically unfit, disabled, etc. student/scholar/child
% of Sample
21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
formal wage work informal wage work
casual wage work (formal and formal business
informal business (production and sale informal business (sale of fresh
informal business (sale of goods) informal business (renting property)
other informal business interest earned on personal
non-government formal grants or aid gifts (one time monetary gifts)
cash remittances (regular financial government social grants
formal loans informal loans
other income sources
% of Sample
22
785.86 492.19
246.85 584.10
377.30 128.33
377.97 232.65
739.20 1649.73
35.93 94.56
189.45 214.94 264.88
7.70 146.65
0 500 1000 1500 2000
wage work (formal sector) wage work (informal sector)
casual work (formal and formal business
informal business (production informal business (sale of informal business (sale of informal business (renting
other informal business interest earned on personal
non-government formal gifts (one time monetary gifts)
cash remittances government social grants
formal loans (banks) informal loans (moneylenders)
other income source
Mean Income (USD) Average income by source
for the previous month
6.48
4.51
11.12
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
HFIAS HDDS MAHFP
24
HFIAS: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale HDDS: Household Dietary Diversity Score MAHFP: Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning
6.53 4.46
11.18
6.16 4.61
11.02
0 2 4 6 8
10 12
HFIAS HDDS MAHFP
Mea
n Sc
ores
Comparison of food security measures for households receiving remittances and those not
receiving remittances (KINGSTON)
no remittances received remittances received
25
HFIAS: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale HDDS: Household Dietary Diversity Score MAHFP: Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning
16.48
3.27
8.95
16.89
2.89
7.89
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
HFIAS HDDS MAHFP
Mea
n S
core
s Kingston: Food insecurity by remittance receipt for households with high levels of lived poverty
no remittances received remittances received 26
} There were no significant differences in food security status when households receiving remittances were compared with those receiving no remittances.
} In a general sense, the amount of remittance mattered more than whether or not remittance was received
} When the sample was disaggregated by lived poverty experience, there was no significant difference in the indices of food security in households that had received remittances than in those that had not.
27
} the amount of remittances being small, does not appear to have a transformative effect on lifting households out of poverty but appear to influence the households’ ability to navigate food insecurity, despite poverty .
} The issue is that remittances may have brought the food security of the poorest households to a situation that is comparable to the mean levels of food security within the poverty profile of their LPI category.
} The evidence suggested that remittances contributed most significantly in terms of food security, to the most vulnerable, and thereby contributing to inclusive social development.