The following was posted by Laura Olsen in the forum in response to previous postings. To read those messages and to post a reply please sign into the sight and click 'forum'. 

REMITTANCES
You both mention that remittances will ‘remain resilient’ quoting a World Bank Brief from last fall. While it is true that in the past remittances have been considered to be stable, and even-counter cyclical during recession, the current financial crisis is proving otherwise. Perhaps in comparison to other capital flows, such as foreign investment and foreign aid, which have significantly declined since the downturn, it could be said the remittances ‘remain resilient’. Yet since the beginning of the recession economists projected ‘the trend of booming remittances is over’ (New York Times) and the projections are only looking more grim. In the report referenced by Sandra remittances were expected to fall by 0.9 percent (or at the worst case, no more than 6 percent) in 2009. Since then the World Bank has revised this projection and now estimates a sharper decline of 5 ‐ 8 percent.

Migrant earnings to developing countries are expected to decline 15 billion dollars in 2009 and, according to the World Bank, this decline has already been recorded in several countries including Morocco, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. Responses to an informal E-consultation by the United Nations Development Programme reveal that Vietnam, Belize, Guatemala and Kosovo have experienced ‘significant decreases’ of remittances with Zimbabwe and Uganda reporting a decrease of 50 percent. 71 percent of Hispanic migrants in the US reported sending less remittances home in 2008 than the previous year (PEW) and Kul Chandra Gautum, a former deputy executive director of UNICEF recently told IPS that in the case of Nepal, his home country, “the global financial crisis is expected to cause up to a 30 percent decline in remittances that provide a lifeline for many real communities.”

As women make up the majority of remittance recipients worldwide the reduction of remittance flows is bound to affect them the most. The ILO Bureau of Gender Equality Director Jane Hodges said women will most likely cope by “engaging in longer working hours or by taking multiple low-income jobs but still having to maintain unpaid care commitments”. While the decline in remittances can be attributed to several factors such as movements in exchange rates, increase in the costs of living, political reaction to weak job markets in destination countries and immigration controls, it is tied most closely to migrant employment in the labour markets of destination countries.

LABOUR MARKETS
Alissa, you mention that the financial crisis will not hit migrants as hard as expected as employers will turn to the cheap labour of undocumented immigrants to cut costs. Yet according to the IOM job losses continue to occur in sectors sensitive to economic cycles such as construction, manufacturing, retail and travel/tourism related services – sectors dominated by immigrant labour. A Center for Immigration Studies report released last week reveals that immigrants to the United States have been hit harder by the current recession than native-born Americans. In Malaysia and Singapore deliberate policies have been put in place to encourage employers to retrench migrant workers first and/or replace them with unemployed nationals.

I agree with you both that the effects of the crisis on the labour market will be gendered, yet not in the way you envision: it is women, not men, who will suffer the brunt of the crisis. The ILO predicts the financial crisis will be harder for women and estimates that up to 22 million women worldwide will lose their jobs. An E-consultation by UNDP revealed that sectors in which women work are being most affected - sectors such as tourism, textile and garment industries due to their high dependencies on foreign capital and export markets. The IOM reports that ‘job losses and poorer working conditions for migrants are likely to impact disproportionately on women migrants, who are ovverrepresented in the information, low-skilled and unregulated sectors of the economy.”

POLICY
I would like to raise another important issue that bears relevance to the two above mentioned topics and that is of potentially disastrous consequence for development and global poverty: that of government migration policies in response to the financial crisis. A mix of xenophobia and an the false perception that migrants take jobs and welfare benefits from natives has resulted in policies that encourage return migration and restrict (or in some cases stop) migration.

There are several examples of both incentives and deterrents designed to encourage return migration
• Spain is offering eligible migrants lump sum payment to return to their country of origin if they agree not to return to Spain within a period of three years.
• In February the Czech Republic offered a free plane ticket and 500 Euros to foreign workers who voluntarily agree to return home after losing their jobs in economic downturn
• In March trade unions in Poland called for restrictions on some foreign workers, partly to make room for the thousands of Polish workers expected to lose their jobs
• Thailand's government announced it would not renew the work permits of foreign workers in hopes of creating jobs for Thai nationals
• A provision in the stimulus package in the US makes it more difficult for companies to hire skilled foreign workers

You both mention that migration will not likely slow as migrants prefer to stay in the destination and you’re right that the policies designed to send migrants home have not had the intended consequences. In the case of Spain fewer than 1400 of the 100,000 eligible migrants agreed to leave the country in the first month of the the new policy. Yet return migration is not always the choice of the migrant. In Malaysia there is evidence of policies to speed up the deportation of irregular migrants who have lived and worked in the country illegally. According to the World Bank the Malaysian government has reportedly cancelled work visas for some 55,000 Bangladeshi workers. Countries of origin, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, Morocco and Sri Lanka, are already experiencing influxes of returning migrants (IPS).

A number of destination countries – mostly in the West and the Middle East – have stopped or imposed restrictions on new admissions or migrants for employment. Australia has reduced its intake from 133,500 to 115,000; Russia tightened labour migration rules; Britain has introduced a points-based system favoring high-skilled migrants and even raising academic qualifications. (IPS) In February Korea stopped issuing new visas to temporary migrant workers and in Thailand the government announced that it would not issue new work permits. (IOM)

It must be remembered that human mobility makes economies more dynamic and more efficient. Migration may be a positive force in alleviating various aspects of the economic crisis and potentially make an important contribution towards overcoming the economic downturn. (IOM) Considering that last year migrants sent USD 283 billion to the developing world, restricting migration means stifling the developing world’s lifeline.