1. Bilateral data on remittances for OECD countries
Agenda
Item 6.2
Fabiana Cerasa
OECD Statistics Directorate
…, STD/SES/TAGS; 2nd WPTGS Meeting , Paris

2. General background
High political and economic interest in remittances in recent years
Improving the measurement of remittances is essential and at the same time challenging
In December 2008 OECD sent an ad-hoc questionnaire, complementing work done by Eurostat to obtain more direct information on main remittances corridors
Political and economic interest in remittances has been growing in the last few years in both developed and developing countries, because of the potential for these flows to reduce poverty. The importance of migrant remittances in the global development agenda was recognized at the G8 summit in Japan, in 2008, and at the 2007 G8 conference on remittances in Berlin.
In this context, improving the measurement of remittances is essential and at the same time challenging. Indeed remittances are heterogeneous flows, characterized by numerous small transactions conducted by individuals through a large variety of channels, many of which are informal.
After discussion at WPTGS in September 2008, in December 2008, complementing work done by Eurostat in 2007, OECD sent an ad-hoc questionnaire to member countries in order to obtain more direct information on main remittances corridors and to improve the understanding of the whole picture regarding remittances.

3. Ad-hoc questionnaire (1)
OECD asked MCs to provide data on:
WR World
CoE vis-à-vis
Net CoE major partners
for years
Personal remittances: a+b+c
a: Personal transfers
(part of secondary income)
b: Net CoE
(CoE minus taxes & social contrib, transport & travel)
c: Capital transfers between HHs
OECD asked member countries to provide data on Workers’ Remittances, Compensation of Employees and Net compensation of employees, vis-à-vis total World and the three major destination/source countries for the period
Net compensation of employees is defined as compensation of employees minus taxes and social contributions related to Compensation of Employees, and minus transport and travel expenditures related to short term employment. It was included in this survey because with Personal transfers and Capital transfers between households it is a component of Personal remittances in BPM6.
It should be noted that data collected by member countries usually reflect flows officially recorded within the framework of the Balance of Payment. Money sent through informal or illegal channels is usually not recorded, and therefore, those flows will not be reflected in the statistics presented in this note.
Source: BPM6

4. Ad-hoc questionnaire (2)
Questionnaire sent by OECD to OECD-nonEU countries
Eurostat source used for the others
In total:
2 countries (7%) only data vis-à-vis WRD
21 countries (70%) data vis-à-vis WRD + bilateral
7 countries (23%) no data
OECD sent the survey to OECD-non EU countries (Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, USA), and used Eurostat source for the OECD-EU countries.
Results are presented for 2005 and 2006, as Eurostat data mentioned were collected in 2007 and cover 2005 and 2006.
In total, 2 countries provided only data vis-à-vis world, 21 countries sent also bilateral data, while 7 countries didn’t provide any data.
*2 countries only WRD: Switzerland and Poland
21 countries WRD & PCs: Austria, Belgium, Czech Rep, Japan, Turkey, US, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Rep, UK, Hungary, Sweden
7 countries no data: Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Korea, Iceland

5. WR Outflows 2005 2006 World 100 117 OECD 68 78 % 66 bn USD
OECD 68 78 % 66
According to IMF, total workers’ remittances sent worldwide increased from 100 bn USD in 2005 to 117 bn USD in OECD countries sent 78 bn USD in 2006, vs 68 bn USD in 2005, almost 70% of the total in both years.
Among OECD countries, it is noticeable the position of USA, with 34 bn USD sent in 2006, followed by Spain, UK and Italy. These countries account for almost 50% of workers’ remittances sent worldwide.

6. Major WR corridors, Outflows, bn $, 2006
to MAR 0.99
to COL 1.69
To CHN 0.88
to IND 0.8
to ECU 1.45
to TUR 1.02
to BOL 0.93
The major WR corridors for outflows identified through this questionnaire are the following:
Spain  Colombia* 1.69
Spain  Ecuador*
Germany  Turkey* 1.02
France  Portugal* MIRROR
France  Morocco*
Italy  Roumania*
Spain  Bolivia* click
Italy  China* click
UK  India*
Unfortunately, bilateral data for US, the biggest sender among OECD countries in both 2005 and 2006 are not available, but unofficially estimates based on modelling techniques put USMexico workers’ remittances plus compensation of employees flows in excess of 10 bn USD in
to ROU 0.98
to PRT 1
Source: Eurostat

7. WR Inflows 2005 2006 World 153 181 OECD 40 46 % 26 25 bn USD
OECD 40 46 % 26 25
As regards workers’ remittances received, worldwide they grew from 153 bn USD in 2005 to 181 bn USD in 2006, the OECD countries’ contribution being 40 bn USD in 2005 and 46 bn USD in 2006, equal to about 25% of the total both years.
Among the biggest OECD receivers, Mexico is at the top, with 24 bn USD received in 2006.

8. Major WR corridors, Inflows, bn $, 2006
from US 0.33
from US 0.46
from US 0.72
from SAU 0.77
from DEU 0.5
from UK 1.45
from NLD 0.41
from FRA 0.61
As regards the main WR corridors for inflows this questionnaire identified:
Spain  UK*
Portugal  France* MIRROR
UK  Saudi Arabia*
Spain  USA*
Portugal  Switzerland*
Spain  France*
UK  Germany*
Greece  USA* click
UK  Netherlands*
Japan  USA
Again, unfortunately, bilateral data for Mexico, the biggest receiver among OECD countries in both 2005 and 2006, were not provided.
from CHE 0.67
from FRA 1.23
Source: Eurostat and OECD

9. CoE Outflows 2005 2006 World 85 95 OECD 60 65 % 70 68 bn USD
OECD 60 65 % 70 68
According to IMF, compensation of employees (CoE) sent worldwide grew from 85 bn USD in 2005 to 95 bn USD in OECD countries contributed to about 70% of that, with 60 bn USD sent in 2005 and 65 bn USD in 2006.
The biggest sender in both years is Switzerland, followed by USA, Germany and Luxembourg. These countries account for almost 40% of CoE sent worldwide, both in 2005 and 2006.

10. Major CoE corridors, Outflows, bn $, 2006
from US to CAN 0.48
to MEX 7
to SWE 0.93
to DEU 0.71
to POL 3.6
from LUX to BEL 2.2
from LUX to DEU 1.79
from BEL to FRA 1.34
to SVK 1.14
from LUX to FRA 3.42
to FRA 2.25
Form the point of view of sending countries, the major corridors for CoE identified through the questionnaire are the following:
USA  Mexico
Germany  Poland*
Luxembourg  France* MIRROR
Germany  France* MIRROR
Luxembourg  Belgium* MIRROR
Luxembourg  Germany* 1.79 MIRROR
Belgium  France*
Czech Rep  Slovak Rep* 1.14
Denmark  Sweden*
UK  Germany*
USA  Canada
Source: Eurostat and OECD

11. COE Inflows 2005 2006 World 76 83 OECD 54 57 % 71 70 bn USD
OECD 54 57 % 71 70
Finally, compensation of employees received, according to IMF figures, increased from 76 bn USD in 2005 to 83 bn USD in 2006, with OECD countries receiving about 70% of the total, precisely 54 bn USD in 2005 and 57 bn USD in 2006.
Among the biggest receivers, France is at the top of the list in both years, followed by Belgium, Germany and Poland. These countries accounted for almost 40% of total remittances received worldwide.

12. Major CoE corridors, Inflows, bn $, 2006
from US 0.66
from NLD 0.89
from LUX to BEL 2.04
from LUX 1.75
from DEU 2.33
from LUX 2.36
from CHE 1.85
The major inflow CoE corridors identified through the questionnaire are shown here:
France  Switzerland*
France  Luxembourg* MIRROR
France  Germany* MIRROR  
Belgium  Luxembourg* MIRROR  
Germany  Switzerland*  
Germany  Luxembourg* MIRROR
Belgium  Netherlands*
Germany  USA*
from CHE 5.13
Source: Eurostat and OECD

13. International initiatives: the launch of the RCG (1)
RCG published in June 2009
addresses the need for practical compilation guidance, supporting data compilers
acknowledges the different country circumstances:
constraints
capabilities
characteristics
Although remittances have grown in importance in recent years, the quality of statistical data still remains poor and unsatisfactory.
These issues prompted the G-8 Heads of State to call for improvement in the quality of statistical data on remittances. While the sixth edition of the Balance of Payment Manual deals with concepts and definitions associated with international labour mobility, the International Transactions in Remittances Guide for Compilers and Users of Remittances (RCG), published in June 2009, addresses the need for practical compilation guidance, supporting data compilers in their effort to provide accurate, complete, and timely data on remittances.
The guide acknowledges the different country circumstances and the compilers’ need to adapt data compilation strategies to country constraints, capabilities and characteristics.

14. International initiatives: the launch of the RCG (2)
RCG does not recommend a single source
it is up to the country:
to understand its own specific situation regarding personal remittances transactions
to combine different data sources strategically as to ensure sufficient coverage, accuracy and timeliness of data
Thereby it does not recommended to countries a single source as the most reliable to ensure that all transactions are reported adequately, as different data sources are suited to different channels.
Therefore, several approaches are described, and it is up to the country to understand its own specific situation regarding personal remittances transactions, i.e. the institutional and regulatory framework, the predominant remitting channels used, the reporting burden and the compilation costs, and to combine different data sources strategically as to ensure sufficient coverage, accuracy and timeliness of data.

15. Questions to WPTGS delegates:
Do the tables correctly reflect the current availability of remittances data by partner country?
Do any countries, that currently do not provide partner country data for Workers’ Remittances and Compensation of Employees, have plans to introduce this?
Are there any other comments or suggestions on remittances data collection and dissemination process?
Thank you for your attention.
And now the floor is back to you for any opinion or suggestion that may be useful to us.
Do tables and charts correctly reflect the current availability of remittances data by partner country?
Do any countries, that currently do not provide partner country data for Workers’ Remittances and Compensation of Employees, have plans to introduce this?
Are there any other comments or suggestions on remittances data collection and dissemination process?