Abstract: This paper examines the economic impact of international remittances on countries and households in the developing world. To analyze the country-level impact of remittances, the paper estimates an econometric model based on a new data set of 115 developing countries. Results suggest that countries located close to a major remittance-sending region (like the United States, OECD-Europe) are more likely to receive international remittances, and that while the level of poverty in a country has no statistical effect on the amount of remittances received, for those countries which are fortunate enough to receive remittances, these resource flows do tend to reduce the level and depth of poverty. At the household level, a review of findings from recent research suggest that households receiving international remittances spend less at the margin on consumption goods-like food-and more on investment goods-like education and housing. Households receiving international remittances also tend to invest more in entrepreneurial activities.

This paper examines the economic impact of international remittances on countries and households in the developing world. To analyze the country-level impact of remittances, the paper estimates an econometric model based on a new data set of 115 developing countries. Results suggest that countries located close to a major remittance-sending region (like the United States, OECD-Europe) are more likely to receive international remittances, and that while the level of poverty in a country has no statistical effect on the amount of remittances received, for those countries which are fortunate enough to receive remittances, these resource flows do tend to reduce the level and depth of poverty. At the household level, a review of findings from recent research suggest that households receiving international remittances spend less at the margin on consumption goods - like food - and more on investment goods - like education and housing. Households receiving international remittances also tend to invest more in entrepreneurial activities.

This paper examines the economic impact of international remittances on countries and households in the developing world. To analyze the country-level impact of remittances, the paper estimates an econometric model based on a new data set of 115 developing countries. Results suggest that countries located close to a major remittance-sending region (like the United States, OECD-Europe) are more likely to receive international remittances, and that while the level of poverty in a country has no statistical effect on the amount of remittances received, for those countries which are fortunate enough to receive remittances, these resource flows do tend to reduce the level and depth of poverty. At the household level, a review of findings from recent research suggest that households receiving international remittances spend less at the margin on consumption goods-like food-and more on investment goods-like education and housing. Households receiving international remittances also tend to invest more in entrepreneurial activities.

In this paper we survey the recent literature assessing the development impact of international migrant remittances. We begin by arguing that international migration should be fully incorporated in ongoing debates on the impact of globalization. We show that, despite methodological challenges, there is an emerging body of evidence suggesting that migrant remittances can have an important impact on development and household welfare. Remittances appear to help in poverty reduction, accumulation of human capital, investment and saving. Finally, we offer an account of existing policies and recommendations to facilitate remittance flows and to take advantage of their developmental potential.

Study based on a household survey conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) between September 1986 and May 1987 in three villages in the Minya governate.

The author uses a large, nationally representative household survey to analyze the impact of internal remittances (from Ghana) and international remittances (from African and other countries) on poverty in Ghana. With only one exception, he finds that both types of remittances reduce the level, depth, and severity of poverty in Ghana. But the size of the poverty reduction depends on how poverty is being measured. The author finds that poverty is reduced more when international, as opposed to internal, remittances are included in household income, and when poverty is measured by the more sensitive poverty measures-poverty gap and squared poverty gap. For example, the squared poverty gap measure shows that including international remittances in household expenditure (income) reduces the severity of poverty by 34.8 percent, while including internal remittances in such income reduces the severity of poverty by only 4.1 percent. International remittances reduce the severity of poverty more than internal remittances because of the differential impact of these two types of remittances on poor households. Households in the poorest decile group receive 22.7 percent of their total household expenditure (income) from international remittances, as opposed to only 13.8 percent of such income from internal remittances. When these "poorest of the poor" households receive international remittances, their income status changes dramatically and this in turn has a large effect on any poverty measure-like the squared poverty gap-that considers both the number and distance of poor households beneath the poverty line.

"The author uses a large household data set from Guatemala to analyze how the receipt of internal remittances (from Guatemala) and international remittances (from the United States) affects the marginal spending behavior of households on various consumption and investment goods. Contrary to other studies, the author finds that households receiving remittances actually spend less at the margin on consumption-food and consumer goods and durables-than do households receiving no remittances. Instead of spending on consumption, households receiving remittances tend to spend more on investment goods, like education, health, and housing. The analysis shows that a large amount of remittance money goes into education. At the margin, households receiving internal and international remittances spend 45 and 58 percent more, respectively, on education, than do households with no remittances. These increased expenditures on education represent investment in human capital. Like other studies, the author finds that remittance-receiving households spend more at the margin on housing. These increased expenditures on housing represent a type of investment for the migrant, as well as a means for boosting local economic development by creating new income and employment opportunities for skilled and unskilled workers. "--World Bank web site.

This paper analyzes the impact of international remittances on poverty and household consumption and investment using panel data (2000 and 2007) from the Indonesian Family Life Survey. Three key findings emerge. First, using an instrumental variables approach to control for selection and endogeneity, it finds that international remittances have a large statistical effect on reducing poverty in Indonesia. Second, households receiving remittances in 2007 spent more at the margin on one key consumption good -- food -- compared with what they would have spent on this good without the receipt of remittances. Third, households receiving remittances in 2007 spent less at the margin on one important investment good -- housing -- compared with what they would have spent on this good without the receipt of remittances. Households receiving international remittances in Indonesia are poorer than other types of households, and thus they tend to spend their remittances at the margin on consumption rather than investment goods.