Dear Editor,
Data on migration is not readily available, and, to compound the issue, the 2012 Census offers a misleading insight. Of the four major ethnic groups, Indians and Africans suffered a decline from 2002 to 2012, while people of mixed racial backgrounds and Amerindians increased their numbers. The combined contraction of Indians, Africans and others (minor groups) amount to 41,692, while that of mixed people and Amerindians increased by 22,805 and 9,817, respectively. Overall, Guyana’s population fell by 4,268. What role has overseas migration played in the decline of the country’s population by 0.57 per cent? The data is messy and my estimate below must be interpreted and used with caution.
As a starting point, let’s hypothesize that the outward flow of Indians played a significant role in the decline. The basis for this hypothesis is that the Indian shortfall accounts for 69.1 per cent of the combined shortfall of Indians, Africans and others; the other two major groups, people of mixed racial backgrounds and Amerindians, gained strength. To interrogate this hunch, let’s turn to the data/estimates.
Consider, firstly, the estimate from the 2012 National Census (Compendium 1, p 14-18) for the period 2007 to 2012. The data for estimating arrivals and departures were obtained from household responses to questions contained in the individual/ household questionnaire. Departures are defined as citizens “who departed their respective households to live permanently abroad during the period and for whom respondents from their respective households attested to their departures and gave some basic characteristics of them …” Arrivals are defined as Guyanese citizens who have lived outside of Guyana continuously for the six-year period, “but who returned and were living as individual members within their respective households on or prior to Census night 2012.”
The definition of departures raises no major issues. That of arrivals, on the other hand, is confusing and probably misleading. It seems to say that persons who departed to live permanently abroad between 2007 and 2012 but were present in the household on the night the census was taken are counted as arrivals – they had “returned and were living as individual members …” This perspective of arrivals is certainly true, but it is not the whole story. In fact, the majority of such “arrivals” came on business, vacation or to visit family and friends and then departed for their foreign homes. This ‘error of commission’ is one of the main reasons for the low net migration count of 1,906 during the six-year period (departures = 7,238, arrivals = 5,332). Evidence that the figure of 1,906 is a huge underestimate comes from the United States Embassy in Guyana, which, according the Bureau of Statistics, issued 5,185 Guyanese with permanent visas in 2012 alone.
The Bureau of Statistics caveated its finding with the warning that a very low net migration “suggests a strong pattern of underreporting.” It offers two reasons for the “underreporting.” First, no count of people who lived in vacant or closed buildings was possible. Such buildings accounted for 10.3 per cent (22,561) of the total stock of buildings in 2012. The huge proportion of vacant buildings is itself a cause for concern because it is a visible, tangible symbol of the outward trek; of abandoning the “Magnificent Province,” as John Brummell called Guyana in 1853. Second, it is possible that a “considerable number of respondents” forgot and/or deliberately withheld information about household members who migrated to live abroad. This is, of course, a natural response of sceptical people.
In what follows, I endeavour to arrive at my own estimate of how many people left Guyana to live abroad permanently during the decade from 2002 to 2012. The tool for this exercise is the basic population growth identity: population increase (PI) during any given period, usually a year, equals natural population increase (NI) plus net migration (NM). Using high-school algebra, this identity may be stated thus:
(1) PI = NI+NM
Natural increase is the difference between the number of births and deaths, which is about 14,500 and 4,500 respectably, or around 10,000 so that NI= 100,000 for the entire decade. Guyana’s population fell (negatively grew) by 4,268 from 2002 to 2012. Restating identity (1) and solving for net migration:
(2) -4,268 = 100,000 + NM
(3) NM = -4,268 – 100,000
(4) NM = – 104,268
That is, net migration – which is a drain on the population and hence the negative sign ‒ during the decade between the last two censuses was over 100,000. This figure is consistent with the difference between departures and arrivals as reported in the last Quarterly Statistical Bulletin (March 2016): 99,253, which is very close to the estimate arrived at in identity (4). Since the country’s population declined by only 4,268, how could so many people have migrated? Seemingly, it does not add up. The answer, as per the above elementary algebraic identities, is that entire natural increase of the population plus a portion of the principal have apparently migrated overseas. In other words, heavy out-migration and declining fertility rates are driving the decline of Guyana’s population.
Even though Indians migrate at a far higher rate than other ethnic groups, assume for now that their average population share for 2002 and 2012 (41.63) equals their share of net migration. Then around 43,407 Indians left Guyana to take up permanent residence abroad. Needless to say, this is a huge underestimate for the simple reason that the Indian population fell by 8.82 per cent during the decade, while that of African declined by only 3.78 per cent. Moreover, the natural increase of Indians is probably higher than that of Africans: the former has a higher birth rate and mostly likely faces the same death rate as Africans.
Now assume that ethnic population decline is carried over to net migration. Indians and Africans accounted for 69.1 per cent and 20.6 per cent of the contraction of Guyana’s population between 2002 and 2012, respectively. These ‘missing’ Indians and Africans could be assumed, most reasonably, to have migrated overseas. Applying this proportion to net migration (identity 4), then 72,049 of the 104,268 Guyanese who left for abroad permanently were Indians, and 21,479 were African. My estimate thus confirms the hypothesis that Indians are migrating in droves, and at a higher rate than other ethnic groups.
Most likely, it is the outward trek that explains the rapid fall of the Indian population. The migration of Indians began around the early 1960s. It then accelerated in the 1970s and gathered a new impetus in the 1980s as the economy deteriorated and as Indians were marginalized even further. While economic, social and political conditions are still fuelling Indian migration, the ‘acquired pull momentum’ of the stock of migrants in foreign countries is an important pull factor. This dynamic stems from families sponsoring other family members back in Guyana and from marriages of a foreign Guyanese to a local one. Another pull factor is the allure of a rosy living in the US and Canada, for example. Foreign Guyanese supply misleading information to their relatives, especially when they visit, to paint a utopian picture of life abroad. The ‘greener pasture’ perspective is a strong motivation to migrate.
Yours faithfully,
Ramesh Gampat
