Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Does remittances increase consumption and investment?

Anupam Das and John Serieux say not necessarily. They argue that a significant portion of remittances is no longer available for domestic resource mobilization when they are used for debt amortization, capital flight, or reserve accumulation (reverse flows). Their empirical evidence from 36 developing countries shows over the period 1980 to 2006 that a one percent increase in the rate of remittance flows increased the rate of consumption by roughly 0.8 percent, and had no statistically discernable effect on the rate of investment. Their results also indicate that approximately 20 percent to 27 percent of remittance flows have been diverted to finance reverse flows. Furthermore, changes in the rate of remittance flows tended to be positively correlated with changes in debt service payment-to-income ratios and the rate of reserve accumulation relative to income.

Below are tables of variables and expected sign of coefficient used by the authors in their  investment and net exports functions.

Determinants of the Rate of Investment
Variables Relevance Expected Sign of
Coefficient
Total external debt/GDP Import compression and debt-related disincentive effects Negative
Log of rate of inflation Proxy for macroeconomic instability Negative
Per capita income Affects profitability and, therefore, the rate of return on capital Negative
Index of real exchange rate A depreciation (increase in the index) improves the competitiveness of domestically produced goods Positive
Remittances/GDP Increased access to resources beyond that derived from domestic output Zero or positive
Private capital flows/GDP Direct contributions of commercial credit for investment Positive
ODA/GDP Increased access to resources beyond that derived from domestic output Zero or Positive

---------------------

Determinants of Net Exports
Variables Relevance Expected Sign of
Coefficient
OECD income to domestic to domestic income index Affects the demand for net exports  Positive
Index of relative prices  Affects the demand for imports and supply of exports  Positive
Foreign exchange reserves/GDP Influences the feasible supply of imports Negative
Remittances/GDP Influences the feasible supply of imports Negative
Private capital flows/GDP Influences the feasible supply of imports Negative
ODA/GDP Influences the feasible supply of imports Negative

I think the same effect is reached if remittances are largely used to finance consumption of imported goods, which will have minimal effect on domestic investment and exports. The results is that remittances will have little impact, if any, on economic growth. It is happening in Nepal. There is also not a significant impact on foreign exchange reserves, debt level is pretty much the same, and capital flight is directed by the interest rates differential prevailing in the Indian and Nepali financial sectors. But, the story remains the same, i.e. domestic investment level is not affected by remittances. How to ensure that remittances are used for domestic investment in the productive sector and not in financing imports or investment in unproductive sectors?