The central banks in Central America reported that the region had a record
inflow of remittances in 2005: US$8.21bn. This was 15% up on 2004, when
remittances to Central America came to US$7.17bn.
The three countries that depend most on remittances in Central America are
Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. These three countries alone received
US$7.23bn in remittances in 2005.
The importance of remittances to these countries' balance of payments is one
reason why governments from Central America have joined with Mexico to protest
against a proposal, which emanated from the US House of Representatives, to
criminalise and expel illegal migrants who had successfully settled in the US.
The same bill also calls for the erection of more walls along the US-Mexico
border to prevent migrants getting into the US.
There are at least 5m Central Americans living and working in the US. At
least half of these migrants arrived without visas.
Guatemala has most migrants working in the US and receives most in the way of
remittances. In 2005, according to the Banco de Guatemala, it received US$2.99bn
in remittances. This is equivalent to about 10% of the country's GDP. In 2004,
the country's remittances came to US$2.55bn. The Organización Internacional
para las Migraciones reckons that there are 1.2m Guatemalans working in the US,
of which 60% are there illegally.
El Salvador, a much smaller economy, got almost as much in remittances as
Guatemala: US$2.83bn. Remittances were up by 11% compared with 2004, when they
came to US$2.55bn. They accounted for the equivalent of 17% of the country's
GDP. The El Salvadorean central bank reckons that there are 2.4m Salvadoreans
living in the US.
Honduras's remittance revenues in 2005 increased to US$1.5bn from US$1.25bn
in 2004. According to the foreign ministry, 934,000 Hondurans live outside the
country: of these, 895,000 live in the US
In Nicaragua, remittances in 2005 came to US$626m, according to the central
bank. In 2004, remittances had been US$518m.
The other two Central American economies, Costa Rica and Panama, are not
great recipients of remittances. Indeed, Nicaraguans often do the jobs that
Costa Ricans will not do in Costa Rica. Panama has significant numbers of
Colombians, Dominicans, Ecuadoreans, Peruvians and other Central Americans
working in its economy. The Costa Rican central bank reckons that expatriate
Costa Ricans shipped US$262m home in the first nine months of 2005. In the whole
of 2004, they sent US$302m home.
Paraguay: The central bank said that remittances from expatriate
Paraguayans who live predominantly in Spain, the US and Argentina, came to
US$204m in 2005. In 2004, they had remitted US$194m and in 2003, US$164m.The
central bank said that 38% of the money in 2005 came from the US; 30% came from
Spain and 14% from Paraguayans living in Argentina. The central bank noted that
remittances from Argentina had fallen sharply since the Argentine crisis erupted
in December 2001. The central bank reckoned that since then the value of
remittances from Argentina has halved. The bank points out that in 1999, when
the Argentine economy was still keeping its head above water, the total value of
Paraguayan remittances was US$220m.
Peru: The central bank reported that remittances from the 2m Peruvians
living abroad are now running at over US$1bn a year. This was equal to the
annual amount of foreign direct investment. The central bank said that it had
commissioned research that showed that remittances have increased from US$600m
in 1995 to US$1.12bn in 2004. The central bank figure is significantly lower
than the one used by the IDB: it reckons that remittances to Peru were US$2.5bn
in 2005, while the central bank reckons that they were not more than US$1.8bn.
The central bank said that it was almost impossible to calculate the value of
remittances accurately. It asked how should an internet purchase, either of a
good or a services (such as an international flight) be classed if it was paid
for by the remitter for the benefit of someone back home.
The central bank study, by the Consorcio de Investigación Económica y
Social, reckons that 3% of Peruvian households benefit from remittances. Unlike,
remittance receivers in Central America, most of these households are middle
class.
The average amount remitted, according to the CIES, is US$1,200 a year. This
is equivalent to about 14% of the recipient family's total income.
What is clear is that the number of Peruvians leaving the country to work
abroad has increased substantially in recent years. In 2000, 180,000 emigrated;
in 2004 399,000 did. Foreign ministry statistics show that over half the
emigrants are skilled workers.
Peruvian officials are worried about the "brain drain". They point
out that 273,000 university graduate had emigrated and 2,700 Peruvians now work
in other countries' or multilateral, research institutions.
Banks: Regional banks are becoming more interested in the remittance
business. Juan Antonio Niño, the president of the Federación Latinoamericana
de Bancos, said that banks were interested in the idea of helping remittance
receivers use remittances for purposes other than consumption and subsistence.
He said that banks wanted to identify the receiver, and then try to sell him or
her other services around the remittance. He argued that this was being done
most successfully in Ecuador, Peru and Mexico. Ecuadorean banks have developed
products such as mortgages and car loans whose interest payments come from the
remittance. The same system can also be used for credit card payments.
The IDB reckons that remittances in 2005 will top US$55bn. In 2004 they were
US$45bn.
Niño said that the big issue for banks was lowering the cost of remittances.
Switching remittances to electronic delivery was crucial to this. In the US some
banks offer remitters cards with which they can send money: the recipients in
Mexican have similar cards which they use to withdraw cash.
Niño argued that most banks still had to wake up to the opportunities
offered by remittances. He forecast that remittances would be a considerable
source of business over the next few years. He said that it was natural for
banks to move into the remittance business because they could offer both the
sender and the receiver more services than companies that simply wired money
from one place to another. Traditionally, these companies have dominated the
remittance business.
The downside to remittances: January and February are traditionally the
peak times for migration from Mexico to the US. The result is that thousands of
towns and villages which had been filled with young people, often looking for
potential spouses, over Christmas and the New Year, empty, leaving just the very
young and the very old in residence. Most Mexican migrants to the US come from
the centre and south of the country. The Mexican press has highlighted the town
of Pegueros, in the state of Jalisco, quoting a grandmother who said that the
only people left were those of her generation and her grandchildren.
Manuel de Jesús Cardona, an 18-year old from Zacatecas said that he was
going north because of the drought in his home state. He said that the state was
now almost empty of both young men and young women because they had all gone
north.