By Lear Matthews
Lear Matthews is professor, State University of New York, Empire State College. A former lecturer at the University of Guyana, his recently published book is “English Speaking Caribbean Immigrants: Transnational Identities”. He writes on Diaspora issues.
An integral part of the Diaspora experience is the sending of cash and goods, and the transmission of services, from immigrants to their country of origin. Analysts of this phenomenon argue that remittances have become the most visible evidence and measuring stick for the ties connecting immigrants with their homeland. According to the World Bank, remittance flows to developing countries are estimated to have reached $372 billion in 2011. In 2014, money transfers to the Caribbean and Africa exceeded all other forms of external finance. In particular, with substantive flows from the Diaspora, remittances account for approximately 20% of Guyana’s GDP. Diasporas send both financial and social remittances.
Reciprocal Connections
It is customary to think of remittances as flowing in one direction that is, from developed country (for example, USA or Canada) to developing country (for example Guyana or Grenada). Recipients are assisted with an array of edible and non-edible items. Barrels, crates and boxes are shipped, and money transferred, to relatives and friends daily for both personal and commercial use. Remittances are also utilized for investment purposes in the sender’s country of origin in small businesses such as manufacturing and crafts companies, market stalls and transport agencies. Monthly orders from abroad have become the norm.
The direction of remittance transmission is determined by the difference in economic strength between sending and receiving countries. However, what is often overlooked is that members of the Diaspora receive tons of items from the home country annually, brought primarily by emigrating relatives and friends or those returning from vacation.
Favourite indigenous items brought from Guyana include cassava bread, plantain chips, fresh fish, fried banga mary and butter fish, mittai, “chicken foot,” tea bush, fudge, curry powder, seasoning, sugar cake, guava cheese, pepper sauce, cassareep, black cake, tamarind balls, cheese, dried shrimps, rum, pointer broom; ornaments/artifacts, and much more. Some would gloatingly insist that these items represent “de real t’ing from home,” sustaining customary taste and character.
This reciprocity of remittances between immigrants and non-immigrants satisfies primarily the material needs of those still at home and the emotional/nostalgic needs of those already abroad. They are both part of a unitary social field and informal global market economy. Those in the Diaspora may feel obligated to send a variety of goods and cash to family, friends and institutions to which they were previously attached. For others, it is a sense of responsibility, commitment, or desire to “give back” to their community of origin. The barrel is also a symbol of love for those engaged in transnational parenting. Receiving items from “home” is central to immigrants’ sustained connection and cultural identity with their country of origin. It may be for some an unrealized existential cultural lifeline.
Studies of the impact of remittances show that hometown associations (HTAs)—which are organizations formed by immigrants from the same village, town, community, or institution—are engaged in a variety of development projects. Through remittances, these organizations seek to support, and to maintain connections with, their members’ places of origin. At the same time, members retain a sense of community as they adjust to life in their adopted home. They sponsor socio-cultural fundraising events to accumulate resources to send “home.”
There is also an inherent satisfaction and pride in viewing the homeland as a safe haven to return on vacation or to reside permanently after retirement. Sending remittances could be viewed as paving the way for realizing such plans. Thus, the economic dimension only provides a partial understanding of this entrenched immigrant activity.\
Challenges
Remittances potentially contribute to development at both the household and institutional levels. However, remittances have also been shown to have some negative consequences.
These can include displacement of local jobs and income, increased consumption spending (primarily on imports), inflation of local prices, minimum immigrant investment, creation of socio-economic disparity, envy between recipients and non-recipients of remittances (fueling high levels of “conspicuous consumption”), and the creation of a culture of economic dependency. A 2013 Kaieteur News editorial described this phenomenon as ‘the inexorable two-edged sword’.
In her study of migration and its impact on families in Guyana, Barbara Holder (2006) found that although sending remittances served to help maintain families, in some instances it created dependency without significantly improving family circumstances. Furthermore, children’s academic performance decreased, and they exhibited behavioral problems, particularly when their mothers emigrated. Holder also found that some communities became “migrant dependent communities” and family problems increased. A “migrant dependent community” is one in which remittances contribute to a substantive portion of its sustenance.
Despite such findings, many remittance recipients today may not fit such a characterization. As revealed by sociologist Aubrey Bonnett, improvement in families’ economic wellbeing and in the sustainability of communities as a result of various forms of remittances, has been evident in many Caribbean countries.
Remittances to developing countries comprise a valuable and persistent source of material and financial aid. Transactions and incremental improvements are usually considered at the micro level. These involve helping family, friends and social institutions; charity work; and disaster mitigation.
However, an alarm has been sounded about the risk that remittance transactions might facilitate money laundering and other illegal activities. In response, a 2014 meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers formed a Caribbean regional task force, which focused on “de-risking Diaspora remittances”. Another concern, expressed by former Guyanese president Donald Ramotar in 2014, is that some hometown association members have used the duty-free concessions, which are granted to their organizations, to transport personal items into the country, in violation of customs regulations.
Moving Forward
Regardless of the concerns and challenges, amidst the growing stress placed on Caribbean economies, many families rely on the cash, food, goods and other forms of support from abroad to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Infrastructural and community development projects continue to benefit from remittances. In light of the new Guyanese government’s welcoming overtures toward the Diaspora, it would be interesting to see if the patterns described above will continue.
Will the remittances phenomenon become more or less organized or institutionalized? How will the level of enthusiasm and commitment to sustain and reciprocate connections be affected? This writer is optimistic about the intensity of the transnational relationship, and predicts that segments of the Diaspora will continue to support homeland development. They will simultaneously continue to crave indigenous items as they nostalgically strive to maintain critical cultural links and identify with the land of their birth.
In his seminal work on Migration, Diaspora and Development in the Caribbean, Keith Nurse argues that diasporization is not likely to significantly modify the fundamental structure of peripheral economies. However, Diaspora development activities through remittances are a good indicator of economic, political and cultural links between sending and receiving countries. Both the government and Diaspora entities should encourage more investment in the country by remittance recipients, as suggested by some experts. Perhaps the enthusiasm aroused by the anticipated 50th anniversary independence celebration in 2016 will not only reinvigorate quality transnational connectivity, but provide a launching pad for such investment.
Finally, Caribbean entrepreneurs must increase their investment and ownership in the money transfer business. The market is vast and the opportunities for these entrepreneurs loom large. Taking advantage of this market would enhance financial benefits and the control of the remittance exchanges in the region and the Diaspora.
