Elizabeth Thomas-Hope the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Migration as enabler of inclusive social development? Focus on food security as an Indicator by Elizabeth Thomas-Hope The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica For a Hungry Cities Partnership Symposium on “NEW DIRECTIONS IN SOUTH-SOUTH MIGRATION” at the Balsillie School of International Affairs Waterloo, Canada November 19-20, 2019 } Population (2016) 2.73 millions } High Human Development (2015) HDI 0.73 } Stock of emigrants as percentage of population (2016) 45 } Stock of immigrants as percentage of population (2013) 1.3 (Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 2016) 300 257 250 Thousands Thousands 201 200 177 Migation 170 150 116 100 57 Total Jamaican 39 50 34 31 22 14 16 16 4 3 0 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010-2015 USA UK CANADA 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 Number of deportees 2,000 0 1995-1999 2000-2009 2010-2016 USA Canada UK Others } Remittances – foreign exchange, widening markets } Migration considered positive – freedom to make choices, broaden experience } Employment opportunities } Household economic survival 2,400.00 2,300.00 2,200.00 2,100.00 2,000.00 1,900.00 1,800.00 Remittances in thousands USD Remittances USD in thousands 1,700.00 Bank of Jamaica World Bank 16.5 16.1 16 15.5 15.5 15.3 15 14.9 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.5 Amount as %Amount of GDP 14.2 14 14 13.9 13.5 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 12,100.00 12,005.40 10,100.00 8,100.00 6,100.00 4,100.00 3,661.10 USD USD millions 2,073.20 2,100.00 1,384.00 1,358.90 100.00 USA UK Canada Cayman Others -1,900.00 Islands Sources: Bank of Jamaica, Remittance Reports, (November 2008, November 2009, November 2010, November 2011, December 2013, December 2016). 19% 4% 7% 2% 14% 1% 10% 1% 9% 9% 6% 18% Saving Food Investment/Business Housing House construction Education Utilities Transportation Medical Received on behalf of Sender Clothing & Shoes Other Ramocan, 2011 Rural Areas 24% KMA 24% Other Towns 52% 65 60 55 Poorest 50 45 2 40 3 35 4 30 Richest 25 20 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 Source: STATIN, JSLC, 2014 Households Receiving Remittances by Quintile (2005 - 2015) 60 56.9 54.9 55 51.5 50.9 50.4 48.6 49.3 50 48.3 47.3 45 43.4 39.6 40 Per cent 34.7 34.6 35 32.2 32.4 32.5 30.4 30 28.7 26 25 21.2 20 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 Poorest Richest Havendale Seaview Gdns Elletson Flats Nannyville Rae Town Harbour View Port Royal Sample location 40 35 33.8 30.6 30 25 20 16.8 17 % of sample sample % of 15 10 5 1.8 0 female male nuclear extended other 19 centered centered % of Sample 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 this city another urban area in this country rural area in this country foreign country 20 % of Sample 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 self-employed working full-time working part-time/casual/ unemployed and looking for unemployed and not looking for housewife pensioner medically unfit, disabled, etc. student/scholar/child 21 % of Sample 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 formal wage work informal wage work casual wage work (formal and formal business informal business (production and sale informal business (sale of fresh informal business (sale of goods) informal business (renting property) other informal business interest earned on personal non-government formal grants or aid gifts (one time monetary gifts) cash remittances (regular financial government social grants formal loans informal loans 22 other income sources Average income by source for the previous month Mean Income (USD) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 wage work (formal sector) 785.86 wage work (informal sector) 492.19 casual work (formal and 246.85 formal business 584.10 informal business (production 377.30 informal business (sale of 128.33 informal business (sale of 377.97 informal business (renting 232.65 other informal business 739.20 interest earned on personal 1649.73 non-government formal 35.93 gifts (one time monetary gifts) 94.56 cash remittances 189.45 government social grants 214.94 formal loans (banks) 264.88 informal loans (moneylenders) 7.70 other income source 146.65 12.00 11.12 10.00 8.00 6.48 6.00 4.51 4.00 2.00 0.00 HFIAS HDDS MAHFP HFIAS: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale HDDS: Household Dietary Diversity Score MAHFP: Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning 24 Comparison of food security measures for households receiving remittances and those not receiving remittances (KINGSTON) 12 11.18 11.02 10 8 6.53 6.16 6 4.46 4.61 4 Mean Scores Scores Mean 2 0 HFIAS HDDS MAHFP no remittances received remittances received HFIAS: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale HDDS: Household Dietary Diversity Score MAHFP: Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning 25 Kingston: Food insecurity by remittance receipt for households with high levels of lived poverty 18 16.48 16.89 16 14 12 10 8.95 7.89 8 Mean Scores Scores Mean 6 4 3.27 2.89 2 0 HFIAS HDDS MAHFP no remittances received remittances received 26 } There were no significant differences in food security status when households receiving remittances were compared with those receiving no remittances. } In a general sense, the amount of remittance mattered more than whether or not remittance was received } When the sample was disaggregated by lived poverty experience, there was no significant difference in the indices of food security in households that had received remittances than in those that had not. 27 } the amount of remittances being small, does not appear to have a transformative effect on lifting households out of poverty but appear to influence the households’ ability to navigate food insecurity, despite poverty . } The issue is that remittances may have brought the food security of the poorest households to a situation that is comparable to the mean levels of food security within the poverty profile of their LPI category. } The evidence suggested that remittances contributed most significantly in terms of food security, to the most vulnerable, and thereby contributing to inclusive social development. .