OVER the past few days, I have seen a number of letter writers, including Eric Phillips and Emile Mervin, casting aspersions on remittances.

Many persons, including Phillips and Mervin, get trapped in this little box, where the ability to see the positives of remittances and migration are limited.

Too much time have been spent focusing on the negatives of migration and remittances; today, globalization and the rapidly changing world, coerce us to turn situation around and utilize it for the benefit of the country.

In animals, this is called mutation. We need to start thinking out of the box and focus on how these new opportunities are assisting in progressing developing nations, and how we can build on the progress made so far.

Migration has enormous implications for growth and welfare in both destination and origin countries. Migration, especially through remittances, serves as a major economic instrument, providing many benefits to developing countries, such as, assisting in poverty alleviation, the provision of better education and health outcomes, and also provides better prospects for returning migrants.

Europe and Central Asia (ECA) view remittances as their second source of income after foreign assistance and foreign direct investments. Remittances also play the same role in other developing countries, and facilitate the battle against economic instability brought about by the rapidly changing world.

Today, migration and remittances are no longer seen as negative, but rather as a major opportunity by developing countries opening new doors to large gains from accumulating human and financial capital abroad to improving the economic situation in their home country. Remittances serve as a key source of foreign exchange and assist in financing the growing deficit of goods and services in many developing countries.

Because remittances are a significant source of foreign exchange, it can support and improve the criteria for developing countries to access the international capital markets. Unlike capital flows, remittances do not create debt servicing or any other obligations, so, financial institutions gain access to better financing than what might be available. India and Turkey have certainly taken advantage and use remittances today as a form of securitization.

The exchange rate is also dependent on remittances and, as an outcome; it affects the macroeconomic policy in the small open economies. In developing countries, inclusive of Guyana, the benefits of remittances are immense, combating poverty and inequality and influencing investments, growth and macroeconomic stability of these countries.

The ordinary people spend remittances on household consumption and also save and invest in the economy; all of which contribute to the growth and development of the country. These ‘remittances’ commentators should start rethinking the concept of remittances; and stop wasting time by criticizing the Government and instead make positive proposals.
ELIZABETH DALY