Results of the Survey 'Engaging Diasporas as Agents for … · 2015. 3. 9. · RESULTS OF THE...

193

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY“ENGAGING DIASPORAS ASAGENTS OF DEVELOPMENT”

The survey on “Engaging Diasporas as Agents forDevelopment” was carried out by the International Organizationfor Migration (IOM) in 2005, with the objective of taking stock ofcurrent policies pursued by governments as regards engagingdiasporas for development. This analysis presents the findingsextracted from the 49 responses received to the questionnaireentitled “Policies targeting diasporas as agents for development”that was addressed to all IOM Member States and Observers.

The purpose of this document is to contribute to the ongoingdebate on diasporas and diaspora policies. It also aims to informgovernments willing to engage with diasporas for developmentabout existing policies, obstacles and successes encountered.

The questionnaire provided a definition of “diasporas” as:“people and ethnic populations that left their homelands,individuals and/or members of organized networks andassociations, maintaining links with their homelands”. Thetransnational dimension of diasporas, the link between home andhost countries rather than the historical connotation was stressed.The term was purposely used in plural to reflect the diversity ofpopulations that can be acknowledged as diasporas.

copyRedBook8.pmd 2005-11-17, 6:18 PM193

194

“Development” was defined in its broad human, social andeconomic meaning. Development implies growth, advancement,empowerment and progress. The goal of development is to buildhuman capabilities and enlarge human choices. Equity,sustainability, productivity and empowerment are its essentialcomponents.

The main message conveyed by the survey is that respondentspursued dynamic policies targeting diasporas. There is anoticeable expansion in the number and types of programmesover the past five years. A variety of policy objectives and toolsare involved; however, these policies are driven by a sharedobjective: to find ways to encourage expatriate populations, eitherpermanently or temporarily settled abroad, to contribute to thedevelopment of their home country. Diaspora policies still facemany obstacles, including suspicion on the part of the populationsthey target.

This analysis proceeds as follows:

1. Background of the survey2. Main findings3. Detailed analysis of the responses to the questionnaire4. Annexes: (a). List of respondents; (b) List of Tables and

Charts; (c) Questionnaire.

Background

This first part of the analysis presents the background of thesurvey, the added value of the exercise, the methodology, apresentation of respondents and some acknowledged caveats.

Why Undertake a Survey on Diaspora Policies?

The role of diasporas in the development, poverty reduction,reconstruction and growth of countries of origin is attractingconsiderable policy interest. To maximize their potentialcontribution to development, and minimize potential negativeeffects, any policy concerning a country’s relation with the


195

overseas diasporas requires careful management. Countriesexperiencing high levels of emigration are not necessarilysuccessful in attracting the attention and support of theirdiasporas. Moreover, migrants are frequently unable to worklegally in host countries, or their qualifications may not berecognized and occupational downgrading occur, all features thatlimit their potential contributions to their home countries, as wellas their countries of residence. Integrating diasporas into localgrowth projects that represent a real added value for the nationaleconomy is a major issue today, as is establishing effectivecooperation between home and host countries to facilitate andsupport diasporas and their contributions to development.

IOM’s experience in implementing programmes targetinghuman capital shows that members of diasporas are veryinterested to support the socio-economic development of theirhome countries, provided that the opportunities offered to do soare credible, and that specific cooperation mechanisms betweenhome and host countries allow them to keep their jobs in thehost country. It was therefore felt that a survey would be timelyin order to take stock, and assess the governmental policies beingput in place to engage diasporas for development.

What is the Added Value of this Survey?

Despite increased academic and policy interest in thecontributions to be made by diasporas to development, there is aclear knowledge gap at the policy level: what policies are beingimplemented, what institutions are in charge, which methodsare favoured, and what tools are put in place? This gap is partiallyowing to the novelty and rapid change in this field.

To our knowledge, no other survey has been undertaken atthe international level that focuses on policy and assessesgovernment engagements with their diasporas for developmentpurposes. Existing research concentrates to a certain extent onthe organization, activities and attitudes of diasporas towardsgovernments.

Of additional interest is the comprehensive scope of thissurvey. Very often studies focus on one aspect of the contributions


196

made by diasporas, such as, e.g. migrant remittances, or skillstransfers, or on a specific policy concern, for instance, how togather data on diasporas, or how to identify the appropriatediaspora interlocutors, or on a specific sector, e.g. medical,educational, information and technology, etc. This survey spansa very wide range of aspects identified as of major importance inengaging diasporas for development, and the contributions thatdiasporas could make, viz. social, financial, business, trade, andhuman. Moreover, it allows to recognize potential similaritiesor differences among the various aspects: for instance, arefinancial contributions related to human capital transfers? Thesurvey deals with the policy and structural environment in whichthe pro-diaspora measures are set up and explores potentialobstacles to policy action.

The survey compares countries at diverse levels ofdevelopment and reveals the similarities and differences in therespective interest most developed and least developed countrieshave in their diasporas abroad.

Another valuable feature of the survey is its dual focus: bothhome and host countries are considered and attention is,therefore, directed at government strategies towards their owndiasporas abroad and host countries’ strategies towards foreigndiasporas within their borders. Special emphasis has been placedon understanding the collaboration mechanisms between sendingand receiving countries.

Finally, this survey, which was addressed to IOM Memberand Observer States in December 2004, is part of IOM’s strategyon Migration and Development, and its results inform policy andsupport project development. The questionnaire was designedto contribute to the Migration and Development IntersessionalWorkshop, held in February 2005, which is one of the annualevents organized by IOM within the framework of InternationalDialogue on Migration. It allows IOM Member States andObserver States to exchange their respective knowledge andexperience concerning diverse migration issues. Forty-ninecountries responded to the questionnaire that was addressed toall IOM Member States and Observers, through their permanentrepresentations in Geneva.


197

Methodology

The questionnaire is based on a literature review on diasporastrategies and policies, as well as on the analysis of IOMprogrammes dealing with diasporas (Migration for DevelopmentMIDA, Return of Qualified Professionals, Research onRemittances and Diasporas).

The questionnaire contains 18 multiple-choice questions, thatalso give respondents the opportunity for further elaboration.The questions aim to take stock on policies in place or in thepipeline, to assess the interest of governments in working withdiasporas with a development perspective, understand howgovernments actually engage in activities with their diasporas,and to see how governments themselves appraise the measuresand policies they pursue. The questions deal with multiple aspectsof diaspora policies: identifying the interlocutors inside diasporas,collecting data on diaspora populations, designating institutionalbodies to collaborate with diasporas, introducing legislativemeasures, targeting the human, social, financial and businessresources of diasporas, establishing partnerships to better engagediasporas for development, assessing obstacles and definingpriorities for further action.

The questions are either intended to obtain information ongovernment strategies towards their own diasporas abroad orhost governments’ strategies towards foreign diasporas on theirterritory. This dual focus was chosen in order to obtain newelements of analysis that can connect the respective policy interestof both.

Only three questions used a different method. Question 13requested respondents to give a qualitative assessment of thesuccess of the actual implementation of policies and programmesmentioned throughout the questionnaire, by rankinggovernmental initiatives from 1 to 3 (corresponding to notsuccessful, successful or very successful). Question 17 askedrespondents to rank a set of priorities from 1 to 3, i.e. notimportant, important and very important, and question 18encouraged respondents to add any other general remarks ordocuments they considered significant to explain their responses.


198

This document provides an analysis extracted from thequestionnaire, and is not a general overview of current globaldiaspora policies.

Caveats

While analysing the responses to the questionnaire, somecaveats were identified.

• Shortcomings related to the lack of coordination amonggovernmental institutions in charge of diasporas.

The fact that a large variety of governmental institutions dealwith diaspora concerns makes it difficult for the questionnaireto be completed by one person alone. Since diaspora issues arerelatively new and cover all types of social, financial andindividual concerns, the agencies charged with overseeing suchissues are also varied. For example, many respondents did notreply to the questions on financial resources because these fallwithin the competence of other departments. Out of the 49responding countries 13, or 20 per cent, did not provide anyfinancial responses, often indicating that this was theresponsibility of other government departments or agencies, suchas the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the results might not fullyreflect the diverse aspects of diaspora policies.

• Lack of coherence in responses since diasporas represent anew and poorly defined subject area.

Some responses were contradictory, which may be due toambiguous question formulation, or the lack of a nationaldefinition of diasporas and of policies targeting diasporas fordevelopment. For example, there are various connotations behind“return programmes” that target failed asylum seekers ratherthan diasporas and do not have a stated development goal. Therespondent will in that case say that they do have returnprogrammes, even though these programmes do not targetdiasporas. There is, therefore, some confusion in the interpretationof the questionnaire as to the actual understanding and identity


199

of diasporas. Caution, in particular regarding confusion with themigrant population in general and with the concept of “nationalminority”, is called for.

• Determining the linkages between migration and develop-ment.

Some countries responded affirmatively to the questionwhether migration policies were part of their developmentstrategies, but failed to explain such policies. Though mostrespondents had a migration policy as such, no details orexamples were given in their response when it came to linkingthe issue of migration to development. The questionnaire mighttherefore offer an overly positive view on how well migrationand development agendas were integrated.

• The dual perspective of their own diasporas abroad andforeign diasporas on their territory.

As many countries are both home and host countries tomigrants, the questionnaire purposely targeted their owndiasporas abroad, and foreign diasporas within their nationalborders. Although this dual perspective, offered usefulcorrelations between integration and diaspora issues, somerespondents might have found it confusing. This caveat wasdiscussed during the design of the questionnaire, but theimportance of this dual perspective outweighed the concerns overa potential confusion.

• The respondent countries represent a self-selected sample.

The questionnaire was sent to all IOM Member and ObserverStates, each deciding on whether or not to respond. This type ofsample leads to a number of caveats: (1) if only the most interestedand active countries respond to the questionnaire, it may conveyan overly dynamic image of diaspora policies which might havebeen less so with a different sample. (2) The questionnaireattracted only few responses from developed countries (11),which raises questions about the general interest of developed


200

countries in diasporas as both migrant sending and receivingcountries. However, by formulating the questionnaire differentlyand focusing more on the aid and support given by developedhost countries to developing countries with well-representedcommunities on their territories, might have triggered moreinterest on their part. Yet, the relatively low response rate alsodemonstrated that the resources of their own nationals abroadare, or seem, less vital for developed countries.

Main Findings

The second part of this analysis discusses how the objectivesinitially set out for this survey were achieved, how diasporapolicies outlined in the responses might have a real impact ondevelopment and how host and home countries collaborate ondiaspora issues. This part concludes with a synthesis of the mainfindings of the questionnaire.

Respondents: Countries and Institutions

Forty-nine countries responded to the questionnaire:

Africa and the Middle East (17 countries in total): Algeria,Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Iraq,Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, SierraLeone, Sudan, Tunisia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

The Americas (11 countries in total): Canada, Chile, Colom-bia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Peru,Uruguay, Venezuela.

Asia-Pacific region (7 countries in total): Australia,Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines,Thailand.

Europe (14 countries in total): Belgium, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary,


201

Italy, Lithuania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine.

Table 1 lists the respondent countries according to incomelevel. Chart 1 illustrates the income levels of the respondentcountries.

TABLE 1

RESPONDENTS BY LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT

Low income Middle income High income

Azerbaijan Algeria Australia

Bangladesh Bosnia and Herzegovina Belgium

Benin Chile Bulgaria

Burundi Costa Rica Canada

Cape Verde El Salvador Estonia

Colombia Honduras Hungary

Cote d'Ivoire Iraq Italy

Ethiopia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Germany

Haiti Mexico Greece

Indonesia Peru Lithuania

Kenya Philippines Portugal

Madagascar Serbia and Montenegro Romania

Mozambique Thailand Ukraine

Pakistan Tunisia

Rwanda Uruguay

Sierra Leone Venezuela

Sudan

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Based on the OECD DAC List of Aid Recipients, as of 11 January 2003.


202

Responses to the questionnaire indicate that countries with asimilar level of development also share some similar concerns:

High-income countries:

• Most developed countries are more concerned with the integ-ration of foreign diasporas on their territories and with pol-icies that take into account ethnic diversity andmulticulturalism, than with their own diasporas abroad.

• Some high-income respondent countries, such as Australia,Belgium, Italy, Canada are nevertheless interested in encour-aging return migration of their own highly qualified profes-sionals.

• High-income countries are interested in promoting their ownidentity (political, economic and cultural) abroad throughtheir diasporas.

Middle and low- income countries:

• have a higher interest in diasporas as remittance senders;• encounter specific difficulties with engaging diasporas be-

cause of their reluctance to work with the home government;


203

• encounter difficulties in identifying willing developmentpartners and interlocutors;

• face resource limitations and truncated policies because ofsuch obstacles as lack of institutional communication, heavyadministration and insufficient services to diasporas.

The questionnaire was received and answered by very diversegovernmental institutions and entities. Moreover, it revealed thatdiasporas were a complex notion, embracing multiple realities.The responses received confirmed that the notion of diasporascan have blurred conceptual borderlines and be confused withother notions such as “labour migrants”, “migrants” or “nationalminorities”. This conceptual blur might explain the extremediversity of institutions responding to the questionnaire (for acomplete list, please refer to Annex 1). The variety of departmentsthat responded to the questionnaire encompasses such differentinstitutions as: Ministries for Foreign Affairs (Costa Rica,Pakistan, Hungary), Ministries for Interior (Germany, the FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Lithuania), Departments incharge of Immigration and Citizenship (Australia, Canada),Ministries of Labour and Social Affairs (Bulgaria, Thailand,Pakistan), Authorities dealing with Irregular Migration andTrafficking: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Authorities dealing withNationalities and Migration: Ukraine, as well as agencies dealingwith development, ethnic affairs, migrant workers, refugees anddisplaced people.

This diversity of stakeholders in charge of diaspora issuesillustrates one of the greatest challenges in developing pro-diaspora policies: how to coordinate the work of such a multitudeof stakeholders for effective implementation. While ministries offoreign affairs tend to be concerned with diasporas abroad,interior ministries, or migration or border control agencies usuallydeal with foreign diasporas on their territory. Some respondentsreturned two questionnaires: one referring to their own diasporasabroad, the other to foreign diasporas within their borders. Thisvariety of stakeholders leads to a lack of exchange and ofcoordination regarding government strategies towards their owndiasporas and those settled on their own territory.


204

Despite this diversity, it is possible to discern ministerialdepartments specifically dealing with diasporas abroad, most ofwhich were created after 2000. As illustrated in Chart 2, 74 percent of respondents stated they had a specialized governmentalstructure liaising with diasporas, for instance Azerbaijan,Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Côted’Ivoire, Lithuania, Mali, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Serbiaand Montenegro, Senegal, Tunisia and Uruguay. This highlightsthe increased awareness, interest and action by governmentsconcerning the involvement of diasporas in developmentschemes.

Achieving the Objectives of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed to achieve six specificobjectives:

• Take stock of existing policies, institutions, laws, tools andinstruments targeting diasporas as agents for development.

• Understand and compare the different policies designed tomanage relations with diasporas abroad and foreign nationalsliving on a country’s territory.


205

• Identify specific policy needs and priorities of IOM membersand observers on diaspora issues.

• Identify major obstacles to involving diasporas in develop-ment policies or programmes (financial means, politicalproblems, data limitations, etc.).

• Explore the relationship between migration and developmentagendas.

• Define regional trends.

Objective 1: Existing policies, institutions, laws, tools andinstruments

Ninety-two per cent of the respondents indicated that theyhad policies and programmes targeting their own diasporasabroad (Chart 3) and 74 per cent were engaged in activitiesdirected towards foreign nationals on their territory (Chart 4).This shows that developed as well as developing countries havean interest in diasporas abroad and that, in general, this yieldeda sample of both migrant home and host countries. Nevertheless,the level of development has a strong impact on the interest fordiasporas abroad: low and middle-income countries are clearlymore interested in tapping the potential of their diasporas abroad.


206

Even though the interest of host countries in foreign diasporason their national territory is less important and their respectiveactivities less structured, 74 per cent have policies regarding theirforeign diasporas in place, which is high, especially as our sampleis composed of 38 low and middle-income countries and only11 high-income countries. While the majority of high-incomecountries confirmed that they had policies intended for foreigndiasporas on their territory, only some developing countriesresponded likewise.

A strong policy commitment towards collaboration withdiasporas abroad was displayed by all respondents. Moreover,the responses point to a great diversity of programmes. A fewcountries have developed comprehensive policy packages, forinstance:

• The Republic of Benin developed a National Policy Plan forBeninese abroad, launched in 2001 and supported at thepresidential level, which comprises a National Policy Declar-ation and establishes a new ministry in charge of relationswith Beninese abroad, as well as a national agency ofBeninese abroad. However, results so far are judged to beminimal.


207

• Colombia: the new programme “ColombiaNos Une” ismonitored at presidential level and has achieved good resultsdespite limited funds. Colombia also works with the countriesthat are host to Columbian diasporas, especially with theUnited States. A pilot project for a “Consular Registry Card”is being implemented in Washington.

• The Ethiopian government established the Ethiopian Expatri-ate Affairs General Directorate in the Ministry of ForeignAffairs, and the Ethiopian Expatriate Support and Coordin-ation Office as part of the country’s capacity-building efforts.Establishing these programmes within existing structuressuggests a considerable policy awareness and interest.

• El Salvador adopted a number of legislative decrees thatintroduced a “Migrant Week”, a “Convention for MigrantWorkers”, visits from Salvadorians living abroad, tax-freegoods for visiting diaspora populations. Executive decreeshave consolidated the foundations for policies and pro-grammes, such as the creation of a Vice-Minister forSalvadorians Abroad, the creation of the General Directionfor Salvadorians Abroad, the establishment of an inter-institu-tional network dealing with Salvadorians abroad and, moregenerally, made the diaspora issue an integral part of thecountry’s foreign policy.

• Uruguay has an official governmental programme, “Programade Vinculacion con los Uruguayos Residentes en el Exterior”along with an internet website (www.vinculacion.gub.uy).Membership is on a voluntary basis and diaspora membersare free to sign up to this programme. Another interestingfeature of this programme is the Evaluation Committee whichoperates under executive authority and in collaboration withthe Dean of the University of Uruguay. Events for diasporasare also organized under this programme. Although thegovernment does not collect data on the characteristics andqualifications of its diaspora community, it does maintain a


208

skills/knowledge database of its diasporas through the“Programa de Vinculacion”.

• Tunisia adopted an annual official programme at the presi-dential level with a special diaspora chapter for 2005-2009.

In addition, the significance of diasporas has led to theintroduction of new or revised policy programmes in respondentcountries:

• Algeria: A new government programme targeting diasporas isbeing implemented.

• Bangladesh: The governmental programme being developedaims at identifying its most prominent diasporas.

• Benin: A “Qualification Database” and an “Investment Code”targeting diasporas is being developed.

• Burundi: A “National Forum for Diasporas” has been created.• Chile: a new migration programme and census have been

launched together with the “Document on the MigratoryPolicies of Chile” (“Documento sobre Politica Migratorias deChile”).

• Pakistan: A programme including visits of expatriate Paki-stani consultants on short-term assignments for the purposeof transferring knowledge and technology has been intro-duced.

• Rwanda: Policies include the preparation of conventionstargeting Rwandan diasporas living in West Africa.

• Sudan: A capacity-building initiative has recently been intro-duced to raise both awareness and competence within theinstitutions in charge of populations abroad.

• Ukraine: The “2010 Diaspora Programme” has been launchedto raise awareness and improve collaboration with diasporasby 2010.

• Venezuela: Programmes include a census of Venezuelanresidents abroad (Censo de los Venezolanos Residentes en elExterior, 2005) and a consolidated government programme toimplement the Electoral Presidential Programme 2004-2005.


209

Countries which had no policy activities aimed at their ownnor foreign diasporas, nonetheless responded to the questionnaireand expressed a clear interest in the subject area, a clear indicationthat they considered it important to participate, even though forsome the widely dispersed diaspora communities made datacollection difficult, or where collaboration with diasporas existed,the initiative had been taken by financial, private institutions andNGOs, rather than by the government.

Objective 2: Manage relations with diasporas abroad andforeign nationals living inside the country

The questionnaire intended to collect relevant information forgovernments, most of which concerned both home and hostcountries. Many respondents, though they recognized this dualrole, responded mainly as either host or home to diasporacommunities. The responses received showed that the concernsspecific to home or host country were rarely systematically treatedand linked and that strategies were developed by differentinstitutions and pursued disconnected objectives.

The definition of diasporas in the questionnaire emphasizesits transnational character, and this sometimes causes confusionamong the respondents, which may account for their differentapproaches regarding their diasporas abroad and foreigndiasporas within their own borders. In addition, some countriesindicated that they paid particular attention to some third-countrydiaspora communities regarding which they conducted extensiveresearch and introduced special policies. For example, Germanyfocuses on foreign diasporas from Egypt, Serbia and Montenegro,and Afghanistan, and has introduced projects specific to thesediaspora groups. The participation by foreign diasporas in hostcountry development projects is not very common. However, itis possible that some respondent governments define those whodo participate as migrants and not as diasporas, and thereforemight have considered that information on these populations isbeyond the scope of the questionnaire.


210

Objective 3: Specific policy needs and priorities

The responses obtained through this questionnaire illustratepolicy priorities and needs. When asked to give ratings ofimportance, governments are mainly concerned with (1) learningabout international good practices, (2) improving governmentalcapacity regarding diaspora programmes, and (3) improvingcoherence between migration and development agendas. Thesepriorities demonstrate that governments are interested in veryconcrete examples of policies and good practices, the effectiveimplementation of such policies, along with the improvedintegration of migration concerns into development strategies.The responses also indicate the need for further policy guidanceto fully incorporate diasporas into national developmentframeworks. Some countries, for example Chile, underlined thefundamental importance of well coordinated inter-institutionalpolicies.

Since the response to the questionnaire came from variousgovernment agencies, general trends are somewhat difficult toidentify. Most respondents prioritized their policy needs as:(1) accessing a “policy guide” that would offer information andguidance to incorporate diasporas in the development agendas;(2) establish a “good practices” database or catalogue; (3) increase“governmental awareness” of diaspora potential”, and(4) identify the “right partners” within diasporas. Theparticipation in international consultations as well as regionalexchanges are highlighted as a useful platform for policydialogue. All these elements are of key importance for furtherprioritization of IOM’s work in the field of diaspora policies andprogrammes.

Objective 4: Major obstacles

Regarding obstacles, the majority of respondents regarded“problems to collect data on diasporas” as the main obstacle inengaging diasporas in development strategies. The responsesoffer limited information regarding the registration of diasporasand the improvement of data collection that could provide a clearview of existing gaps in data collection. Some examples included


211

the use of a census abroad (Chile), card schemes for nationalsabroad (Pakistan) and data on labour migrants (Philippines).These limited results indicate the need for more research andknowledge exchange on methods to register diasporas and collectdata, as a priority area for future work.

“Policies targeting diasporas contradicting integrationpolicies” is quoted as the least-common obstacle, whichcontradicts the idea that diaspora policies might be at odds withintegration policies. It is occasionally assumed that favouringdiaspora linkages with their home countries might harm theprocess of integration in the host country, but our responses donot bear out this assumption.

Additionally, the responses show that “problems to financegovernmental work with diasporas” is the second greatestobstacle quoted by respondents. While governmentsacknowledge the importance of diasporas in development, theylack the financial resources, means and policies to attract diasporaresources. This explains the gap that is often mentioned in theresponses to this questionnaire, between planned policy strategiesand genuinely implemented policies.

Other significant obstacles include “assessing the diasporas’development potential”, “overcoming competition amongdiaspora groups” and “building partnership with home or hostcountries”. The first point stresses the difficulty for policymakersto clearly identify the professional, financial and social capital ofdiasporas abroad, and to match this potential with concretedevelopment strategies at home. The second issue underlines aconstant in the questionnaire: the difficulty that governmentshave to identify the right interlocutors among the diasporas, andto offer development strategies able to respond to the diversifiedsocial, political and economic interests of diasporas. This stressesthe need for a more up-to-date and fitting definition of diasporasthat accounts for the diversity of individual interests rather thansupporting the establishment of one “Diaspora”, united by aunique national interest which might seem unrealistic or remotefrom the personal strategies of individual diaspora members. Thethird point emphasizes the transnational nature of diasporas and


212

the need for partnerships between home and host countries.Although governments acknowledge the need to cooperate,actual coordination seems still difficult to achieve.

Countries identified other specific obstacles apart from thoseproposed by the multiple choices, such as the lack ofcommunication among departments, community representativesand corporate actors.

Objective 5: Are migration and development agendasintegrated?

The questionnaire aimed to explore the relationship betweenthe migration and development agendas. The responses offer fewsatisfying explanations on how this is to be achieved, though amajority of governments stated that migration concerns wereintegrated into development strategies. This question requiresfurther analysis and exchange with the respondents.

Chart 5 shows that 70 per cent of respondents considered thatmigration issues are incorporated in their government’sdevelopment agenda. Despite the significance of positive answersto this question, closer scrutiny reveals that the link betweenmigration and development policies appears to be weak, recentor only partially implemented. It is also interesting to note that


213

77 per cent of developing countries answered in the affirmative,compared to only 55 per cent of developed countries (however,it is important to bear in mind that the sample includes only11 developed countries).

Some respondents detail their governmental efforts ofincorporating migration into the developmental agenda. Greeceexplained how migration and development are integrated intoone framework, as “The interaction of immigration anddevelopment emerges in several articles of Law 2910/2001 in theframe of implementation of migration policy in Greece”. TheMinistry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralizationof the Hellenic Republic has initiated a new draft law on thereform of the legislative framework of migration policy in Greece,in collaboration with other governments. The reform aims topromote more flexible and simplified procedures of entry andresidence of immigrants, as well as special procedures for thegrowth of economic activities within the Greek territory by third-country nationals in order to attract foreign investments.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua also established an agenda ofbinational cross-border development that brings togetherdevelopment and migratory concerns. Bangladesh emphasizedthat migration and development concerns are linked through theofficial recognition of remittances as an important resource forthe economy, while in Cape Verde the national foreign directinvestment policy integrates concerns about diasporainvestments. Other countries included development objectivesin their migration programmes; for instance Benin in its“Governmental Action Plan” and the “National Policy Documenton Beninese Abroad”. But this official inclusion does not yet meanthat the results are being achieved. The Benin government is nowevaluating initial results and designing a follow-up strategy dueto limited concrete results.

Objective 6: Regional trends

Given the partial responses received, it is difficult to identifyregional trends in diaspora policies. Among the few identifiableregional trends it is possible to identify:


214

• a stronger link between diaspora policies and interest inlabour migration in the Asia region and the countries of theformer Soviet Union.

• more comprehensive policy packages and high-level recogni-tion of diaspora role in development, in Central and SouthAmerica compared to other regions, as well as some concreteexamples of collaboration with banks on remittances there.

• a growing interest in diasporas in eastern and central Europeand the countries of the former Soviet Union.

• a very significant interest and dynamism towards diasporas inAfrica, despite the recognition that results are often limitedbecause of diverse obstacles and rather recent policy initia-tives.

• the African and Latin American regions also appear as signifi-cant sending and receiving regions that face complex chal-lenges owing to this double dimension.

It seems, however, more appropriate to consider the level ofdevelopment for each respondent country instead of thegeographic location. The division of countries according toincome might suggest more accurate views on diasporas anddevelopment policies than regional classifications. Withoutseparating the Least Developed Countries (LDC) from the MostDeveloped Countries (MDC), it is hard to explain how countriesare involved in developing policies and programmes fordiasporas and how they are related to development initiatives.While MDCs might not need to engage diasporas in nationaldevelopmental schemes, LDCs are in need of such support fromdiasporas and their human and financial potential. Manycountries positively responded that the remittances coming fromtheir diasporas have made great contributions to economicdevelopment. In addition, while European countries largelybelong to the MDC category, most respondents from Africa andthe Middle East and Asia are categorized as LDCs. Therefore,when this analysis refers to regional differences it concurrentlytakes into consideration the economic and developmentalstandards of the respondents.


215

Are Diaspora Policies Contributing to Development in Place?

A general remark about the results of this survey is that, whilethe responses we received to the questionnaire offer very usefulinsights into policies targeting diasporas, the developmentobjective often surfaces in a diffuse way. It is not very clear howdiasporas contribute to development, how their contributions aremeasured, what their assessed contributions are and how theyimpact on socio-economic development, what difference theymake to the development strategy of the country. Two questionsdirectly invited governments to assess the results of their policies:“Overall, how would you rate your government’s measures toengage diasporas as partners for development: unsuccessful,successful, very successful?” (Question 13) and “Do you considerthat the means invested in those measures/policies match theresults obtained?” (Question 14).

Sixty-three per cent of all respondents consider theirgovernment’s measures/policies aimed at engaging diasporasas partners for development are either as “successful”, or “verysuccessful”. This result means that inspite of multiple obstacles,many respondents consider that their policies have positive andeffective results.

With respect to Question 14, the responses received do notallow us to assess the effectiveness of many projects, measuresand programmes mentioned. This is partly because responseswere not very detailed, but also because there is limited evaluationand result assessment. Nevertheless, we can extract some concreteresults.

• Some countries have designed comprehensive policy pack-ages enforced by legislative and executive means and sup-ported at the presidential or ministerial levels. This is the casefor El Salvador and Colombia. Despite being recently imple-mented, the policies are rated as very successful.

• The pro-diaspora policies have led to an improvement ininvestments made by diasporas in Cape Verde.


216

• The facilities created by the Government of Mali to transferfunds and encourage returns have been identified as condu-cive to diasporas’ increased involvement in developmentissues.

• Though the pro-diaspora policy is considered very successful,the Rwandan government considers that its measures are stillvery recent and at a mobilization stage. Hence, there aresignificant expectations concerning future stages.

• The Government of Indonesia has introduced preliminarylegislation to better respond to the needs of their diasporasabroad. Major challenges still exist to provide better servicesfor diasporas in terms of better legislation and human securityissues, as well as the provision of services.

• Benin considers that only few concrete impacts are registeredbecause of the obstacles encountered by diaspora organiza-tions abroad.

• Pakistan considers that the means invested match the results,but highlights the difficulty of quantifying the results.

These results call for further attention within the policy debateon developing indicators to evaluate policy successes. Countriesare not always certain how to define in concrete terms the resultsobtained. Better assessment of policy results could encompass:measuring investments by diasporas or the numbers of temporaryand permanent returns. However, other positive results are ofequal importance but difficult to quantify such as, reducingadministrative burdens, improving communication withdiasporas, facilitating diaspora driven initiatives, etc.

Each programme and policy should define its own parametersof success from the start and measure achievements as well asevaluate the implementation. However, this requires additionalresources which are limited for some governments. Therefore,


217

comparisons of good practices and exchanges of experiences atinternational level are of major importance.

Policy Collaboration between Sending and Receiving Countries

The questionnaire’s results offer useful insights about existingcollaboration between host and home countries on diasporamatters. The collaboration between receiving and sendingcountries is generally acknowledged in existing research andprogramme evaluations as a significant component for effectivediaspora resource management. Respondents provided examplesof such partnerships: Greece with Bulgaria, Indonesia with SouthKorea, Costa Rica with Nicaragua, Thailand with Nigeria, andMali with France.

However, it appears that, in general, collaboration is limitedas well as difficult to establish. Some countries recognized thesignificance of regional integration mechanisms as keyopportunities for exchange at regional level on diasporas (i.e.Communauté Économique des États de l’Afrique de l’OuestCEDEAO, Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest AfricaineUEMOA, African Union).

Numerous respondents though they are both sending andreceiving countries do not see foreign diasporas on their territoryas a potential driving force for development but they doacknowledge their potential role in the development of theirhome country.

The lack of collaboration between host and home countries isidentified as an important obstacle to developing policies towardsdiasporas in several respondent countries, such as Mexico andPortugal. Nevertheless, 23 out of 49 respondents stated that theyhad established partnerships with the countries where their owndiasporas are based. Only 14 respondents claimed to have such apartnership with the countries of origin of the foreign diasporasbased on their territory.

The responses show a clear correlation between home and hostcountries partnerships and labour migration dynamics (Ukraine


218

signed 16 bilateral treaties on mutual employment and/or socialinsurance). Countries of origin with active labour migrationprogrammes are more likely to seek partnerships with countriesof destination. Recruitment agencies are increasingly involvedin such partnerships and financial intermediaries also play animportant role in this matter.

Summary of Findings

General Points

Strong policy engagement is cited among respondents,although they usually have limited resources dedicated to thesepolicies.

The diaspora policy field is dynamic with ongoingprogrammes and many planned activities in most respondentcountries.

A great diversity of programmes dealing with different aspectsof diaspora issues is acknowledged, but only few arecomprehensive and equally encompass legal, financial, social,professional and symbolic features.

Countries share similar objectives and concerns according tosimilarities in income levels, rather than regional categorization.

Diasporas and Development

The sectors covered by government activities are not solelyaimed at economic development but encompass other social,cultural, artistic, religious or political aspects; therefore thedevelopment focus of the programmes is often diluted or unclear.

However, this might express that indirect measures (dualcitizenship, property rights, voting rights) i.e. those that are notdevised with a development purpose, might have a significantimpact by gaining diaspora confidence and trust and thereforefavouring their contributions to development.


219

Concrete results assessing the impact of diaspora contributionsin financial, human, social and economic terms are limited (forinstance, percentages of diaspora contributions to foreign directinvestment FDI, business and job creation, etc.).

Institutional Arrangements

A growing number of institutions specializing in diasporaissues within governments is noted, which indicates a cleardynamism and strong political interest in this area.

Consulates remain the main vehicles of communication andinteraction with diasporas abroad.

Data

The lack of data is a significant problem, especially formeasuring diasporas abroad, mainly due to registration anddefinition issues. The key question is how best to register citizensand nationals abroad, temporary and permanent migrants.

Many countries are actively engaged in data collection ofqualified diasporas, the questionnaire offers many examples ofdiaspora skills data bases, but only limited insights in theeffectiveness of these programmes.

Common Types of Programmes/Tools and Measures

Organizing events is one of the most common means ofreaching out to diasporas. However, there is no indication of thedevelopment objective being pursued by such events.Respondents indicated that physical returns are less of a priority,either because they already undertake such programmes, orbecause they favour other types of programmes targeting virtualreturns or exchanges, or, finally, because of the costs of suchprogrammes.

Problems of programme implementation, coordination andcollaboration with the diasporas were reported.


220

What Contributions are Sought?

Policy interest in remittances is directly related to labourmigration initiatives and, more broadly, to the interest in diasporatransfers.

Though there seems to be significant awareness of the need tofacilitate remittance transfers, there is still limited evidenceregarding the channelling of remittances towards development,or identifying local projects for development.

The importance of financial transfers is largely confined toLDCs. Remittances are often the responsibility of financedepartments and appear to be unrelated to other diaspora issues.This can prevent governments from having a comprehensiveview and, therefore, relevant policies regarding their populationsabroad.

Diasporas emerge from this survey as key business partnersand there is clearly a growing awareness of their potentialcontributions in terms of foreign direct investment and trade.There is also a strong interest in the business capacity andpotential of foreign diasporas in the host country.

The business potential of diasporas is also recognized bygovernments in the form of developing partnerships withchambers of commerce to specifically favour relations withrepresentatives from diasporas.

Governments have community and hometown associationsas primary contact points among diasporas abroad and at home.

Whom governments identify as partners among the diasporasis an illustration of the country’s development priorities, anddifferent policymakers will prioritize dialogue differently withprofessionals, student networks and academia, business people,community representatives or cultural associations among theirdiasporas.

Throughout the responses, professionals in the medical sectorand research (education and IT) appear to be the priority diaspora


221

targets for matching skills abroad with professional needs athome. The most common type of partnership among allrespondents is with international organizations to engagediasporas in the economic and social development of both homeand host countries.

The questionnaire provides an interesting comparison ofgovernment interest in financial and human resources. Morecountries within our sample facilitate remittance transfers(approximately 50%), whereas fewer develop databases ondiaspora skills and competences (roughly 30%).

The responses do not indicate clear regional trends showingmore interest in financial rather than human capital. It appearsthat human and financial capital interests are complementary,which implies the need for more comprehensive diaspora policies.The Americas are an exception to this as evidence shows thatinterest in remittances is clearly greater than in human capital.

Policy Concerns

The local level (local authorities, local partnerships, localnetworks) appears as a key feature for channelling diasporacontributions in an efficient and tangible way.

Collaboration between home and host countries isacknowledged as a key feature to develop effective programmestargeting diasporas owing to their transnational dimension.Examples of such collaboration do exist, but there are reportedas difficult to achieve and still insufficient.

Our questionnaire could not provide any specific informationon the role of social networks contributing to a bettercommunication between governments and diasporas orinfluencing diasporas’ decisions to become engaged indevelopment initiatives for the home country.

Respondents often cited the difficulty of developing a commonagenda with diasporas, identifying the right partners andovercoming the reluctance of diasporas to work withgovernments.


222

The development of technology and communications systemshas lessened the need for respondent countries to facilitate thereturn of their diasporas, and has increased the awareness ofcountries to the potential contributions via the diaspora networks.

A great number of respondents consider that internationalorganizations have played an important role in relating withdiasporas and integrating migration concerns into developmentstrategies. Country strategies for Benin, Cape Verde, Madagascarand Mali have been developed in cooperation with the IOM andshared with home governments and donors in order to matchtheir development concerns with diaspora resources. In thequestionnaire, however, international organizations appear asmerely donor or funding institutions, whose financial assistanceis appreciated by many respondents.

Detailed Analysis

This third and final part offers a detailed analysis of the mainpoints of interest raised by this survey: data collection, diasporainitiatives and counterparts, policy tools, partnerships, diasporafinancial resources and diaspora human capital resources.

Data Collection: Still Limited but Acknowledged as a Priorityfor Many Respondent Countries

Reliable data and information are prerequisites to enablegovernments to engage diasporas in practical programmes fordevelopment. The availability of data often reflects the degreeof policy interest and, as reporting methods improve, moredetailed data are generated.

Data collection on diasporas involves a number of specificchallenges: first, diasporas have to be properly defined anddetermined to yield accurate quantitative and qualitative data;second, the difficulty of collecting data on diaspora organizations;third, defining and measuring transnational diaspora flows, and


223

fourth, identifying the institutions responsible for gathering dataon diasporas. A major barrier to data collection on diasporas isthe reluctance of diaspora populations themselves to respond tosurveys and governmental inquiries, which demonstrates theimportance of having neutral bodies undertaking such exercises.

Most respondent countries pursue activities geared to theirown diasporas abroad. Seventy-two per cent of respondentsstated that they collected data on their own diasporas abroad.Chart 6 shows the level of data collection by regions. Though theAsia-Pacific region distinguishes itself from other regions due toits slightly higher degree of data collection on diasporas abroad,other regions have also taken an interest in this issue, in particularin the south and central American countries.


224

Among the eight countries stating that they did not collectdata, some are LDCs, which may point to a lack of financialcapacity to collect such information on diasporas.

Furthermore, some respondents explained that theircommunities abroad were excessively dispersed, preventing themfrom collecting data, which, in turn, indicates a need for furtherresearch on registration systems abroad, currently not includedin the questionnaire. Such registration systems would warrantsuch considerations as whether registration was voluntary orcompulsory, which agency maintained the registry for diasporasand how the registry could be used for national elections orcitizenship purposes.

A major issue raised by the questionnaire was how the accurateregistration of expatriates was to be assured. Bulgaria, Bosniaand Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Romania and Ukraine stated that they collected data ondemography, location, country of destination, gender, age,qualifications, occupation and length of stay. Other countriesgathered specific data such as students abroad (Peru) and votersabroad (Estonia). Australia has many sources allowing it to trackexpatriates, such as its Census of Overseas Temporary Workers,the Graduate Destination Survey, the Online Registration Serviceand exit and entry cards that all together can offer a picture ofdiaspora populations.

Examples:

Chile Worldwide census of Chileans abroad in 2003-2005 which gathers demographic, educationaland professional data.

Colombia An ongoing census based on consular regis-tries.

El Salvador In addition to its population of 6.1 million,2 million are registered by consulates abroad.

Italy A database of Italians abroad keeps track ofsuch information. Italians staying abroad formore than 12 months register through consu-


225

lates abroad. All information is compiled intoone single national database.

Mali A demographic census and electoral censustracks the socio-professional status of mi-grants.

Ivory Coast An estimated 26 per cent of the national popu-lation is abroad.

Tunisia The Tunisian government maintains an annualupdated database to collect demographicstatistics and data on the evolution of nationalsabroad (numbers and professional and educa-tional data).

Uruguay Data are collected by the National Institute forStatistics based on figures from the NationalMigration Service which tracks entrance andexit flows.

Colombia Cross-border data on entrance and exit flowsare compared with data from the United States.

Philippines Different sources of data contribute to give ageneral view of its diasporas: the Commissionon Filipinos Overseas collects statistics andestimates the stock of Filipinos abroad (as ofDecember 2001); the Filipino Overseas Infor-mation System offers information about emi-grants, the National Registry of OverseasAbsentee Voters and the Census of OverseasFilipinos (www.census.gov.ph). The diversityof sources allows a good estimate of the Fili-pino population abroad. The Philippines alsohighlights the relationship between diasporapolicies and labour migration. In this case, thefocus is on citizens who live abroad as labourmigrants. The Overseas Filipinos Workers arespecifically classified according to occupation,job categories, destination and gender. Infor-mation about overseas workers is more readilyavailable than on diasporas, which encompass


226

larger populations (families, nationals settledpermanently abroad, second generations). Asimilar situation exists in Pakistan, where themain institution charged with diaspora issuesis located in the Ministry of Labour and Over-seas Pakistanis.

Many respondents did not specify either figures or the typeof data they collect on diasporas. In addition, many respondentshad not designated a particular institution in charge of datacollection, and consulate offices have carried out most of therelevant work overseas. This suggests that there may be asignificant number of diasporas abroad who have not beenaccounted for through any institutional means. The questionnairewas intended to offer a first glance on the diaspora policy context.Future research should include the methods used to gather data,identify the type of data needed, examine registration issues andencourage international data exchanges.

Only very few countries have gender-specific programmes orinterlocutors among their diaspora groups (the Indonesiangovernment identified the State Ministry for Women Empower-ment as one of the specific governmental structures to work withdiasporas).

Although governments confirmed that they collected data,they also considered the collection of data on diasporas abroadas one of the most significant obstacles to policy development.The responses were not detailed enough to explain why the datacollection is such a significant problem (difficulties to define whodiasporas are? Problems to register citizens and national abroad?Lack of data collection tools and methodologies?, etc.) Thishighlights the need for qualitative and quantitative indicators ofthe realities of diasporas, as well as for improved informationexchange between sending and receiving countries which mightyield useful statistics of mutual interest.


227

Diaspora Counterparts

A major result expected from this questionnaire is theidentification of diasporas with which governments are in contact.It is evident that governments interact with a diversity ofstakeholders. The results have two major interests:

First, those identified by governments as partners among thediasporas illustrate governmental priorities. Some policymakerswill prioritize dialogue with professionals, student networks,business people, academia, community representatives or culturalassociations in their diaspora communities abroad. The followingexamples show that countries concerned with labour migrationor with brain-drain issues will engage in dialogue with diasporarepresentatives from:

Second, the responses illustrate the level of organization ofdiasporas (associations, networks, virtual initiatives, etc.), theirown agenda and the dynamics of the diaspora world in general:

Migrant worker associations abroad:

Indonesia

Student associations: Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Madagascar

Associations of young people:

Lithuania

Community associations:

Mexico

Business and professional associations:

Tunisia, Cape Verde (Tunisian entrepreneurs from France investing in Tunisia, and Cape Verdian entrepreneurs from Portugal investing in Cape Verde)

Scientific associations (academia and researchers):

Tunisia

Academic networks: Chilean networks in Argentina

Virtual networks: El Salvador Grupo Virtual de noticias


228

• The Mexican government interacts with a very well-organ-ized forum of the Consultative Council of the Institute ofMexicans Abroad.

• Other associations will illustrate a particular issue for thecountry, such as the Association of Parents with Childrenabroad (Uruguay).

• The State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad keeps contacts withover 600 structures from 90 different countries in all types ofactivities (cultural, political, professional, etc.).

• The questionnaire confirms the transnational dimension ofthese networks which function as bridges between countries:regarding Romania, for instance, there are references toFranco-Romanian and Australian-Romanian associations.

Nevertheless, two main types of diaspora representations arereferred to as the most common partners for governmental action.First, 66 per cent of the respondents referred to community andhometown associations as their primary contact points (Chart 7).This indicates that governments have access to a stock ofinformation relevant to community or hometown associationsestablished abroad through their consulates and embassies.


229

Second, 61 per cent of the respondents stated professional/business networks as their diaspora contacts (Chart 8). Finally,57 per cent mentioned individuals as their diaspora contacts.

Virtual forums/networks do not seem to figure veryprominently as a contact for the respondent countries because offrequent changes of content, the variety and changes inindividuals participating in the forums and time limits.

Some examples of organized databases on diaspora contacts:

• The Bulgarian government (State Agency for BulgariansAbroad) maintains contact with over 600 cultural, political,professional and student organizations.

• Ethiopia has a very active approach to its diaspora issues.When asked to identify interlocutors within its diasporas, theEthiopian government provided detailed information as wellas links to internet websites of cultural, academic and indi-vidual contact points.

• El Salvador maintains a database of networks or associationsas its diaspora contacts.


230

A key finding is that diasporas emerge as privileged businesspartners. Considering diasporas as business partners goes beyondthe issue of remittance transfers and towards other broader areasof financial activities, such as trade exchange and foreign directinvestment. A very high number of governments identifiedbusiness associations, networks and clubs among their diasporapartners.

Policy Tools and Measures to Engage Diasporas forDevelopment

There are two types of governmental measures for organizingdiasporas: direct financial support and indirect measures, suchas organizing events, holding forums, facilitating access toservices, etc.

There were very few affirmative responses regarding directfinancial support to existing structures. Whether they are fordiasporas abroad or for third-country diasporas within theirborders, most respondents were reluctant to offer direct financialsupport, preferring indirect measures. The questionnaire resultsshow that only about 20 per cent of respondents provided anykind of financial assistance to their diasporas abroad. In addition,many countries are hesitant to offer direct financial assistance toor funding of foreign diaspora associations. Mali explained thatthe Constituent Assembly of the High Council for MaliansAbroad (Haut Conseil des Maliens à l’Extérieur) was financed as


231

a new structure and that it did not financially support alreadyexisting diaspora structures.

A significant 70 per cent of respondents stated that theyorganized events for diasporas abroad. This is an indication thatorganizing events is one of the most common means to reach outto diasporas (Chart 9). However, this does not indicate whethera development objective is also being pursued thereby.

There are numerous examples of such events for diasporasabroad:

Benin Organizes day for Beninese abroad in Franceand Belgium for information sharing andcommunication among diasporas. Benin hasalso designed a website for their expatriates atwww.mcrigate.bj.

Ethiopia The annual Ethiopian Diaspora Day is held inDecember in Addis Ababa.

Hungary The high-level Hungarian Standing Confer-ence. The Hungarian government has alsoconstructed a website for diasporas abroad atwww.htmh.hu.

Mali Various forums designed for diasporas and thecreation of a website for its diasporas abroad,http://www.maliensdelexterieur.gov.ml.

Philippines Balik-Saya Programmes that bring Filipinoculture through the performing arts to itsdiasporas in the Middle East, Europe and theUnited States.

Rwanda Events for its diaspora, such as les Conven-tions globales des Rwandais de la diaspora,and its internet website,www.rewandadiaspora.org, for its diasporasabroad.

Thailand National Day and Thai Food Festivals fordiasporas.


232

Tunisia Summer school organized by the Office ofTunisians Abroad.

Zimbabwe Homelink System organizes business events ortrips for diaspora members.

Côte d’Ivoire Colloque international de valorisation descompétences de la diaspora (CIVACAD) tobetter utilize diaspora resources.

By organizing events that encompass such areas as education,business, health, food or culture, the respondent governmentsexpect to involve their diasporas abroad in diverse activities oftheir home countries even though the development and povertyreduction objectives are not clearly stated.

A number of governments have endeavoured to supportdevelopment by attracting diasporas to work systematically withtheir countries of origin. Institutional and legislative measuresare intended to help to organize diasporas abroad and enhancetheir long-term contributions. Regarding such measures, 76 percent of respondents stated that they had consular services directedtowards diasporas abroad. Consulates appear to be the mostimportant interlocutors and actors to interact with diasporas(Chart 10).


233

Peru, for instance, defined a new key role for its consulates asthe interface between the government and its diasporas.Consulates are considered as playing a key role both for countrieswith well-established diaspora policies, where consulates aregiven special recognition and resources, as well as those withfrail policies, where consulates seem the sole link to diasporapopulations.

A number of indirect measures facilitate the engagement ofdiasporas for development by granting them particular rights. Acase in point is dual citizenship (Chart 11).

Dual citizenship is less common in Africa and is oftenidentified by respondents as a field of ongoing restructuring andreflection. However, the importance of dual citizenship isrecognized as facilitating diaspora contributions by many Africanrespondents.

Granting special rights to diasporas is acknowledged bynumerous countries as a noteworthy measure to attract diasporas.Voting rights granted to diasporas from Tunisia allow citizens


234

abroad to vote in presidential elections, and Algeria ensures thesame rights to its diasporas as to residents in presidential andlegislative elections. Property rights (Chart 12) are also significant,especially for post-communist countries where the right toproperty was often not recognized or lost when emigrating fromtheir country of origin.

Respondents appear to connect such measures, which are notspecifically targeted at a development objective, to indirectlyfavouring diaspora contributions to development.

There are also specific residence and visa arrangements tofacilitate diaspora access to their home countries, such as Algeria’sCustoms Article (2002), which encourages returns to the countryof origin.

Lastly, a number of respondents stressed the use of specialregistration and identification cards as a key institutional measureaimed at diasporas abroad.

While these cards enhance data registration, they alsocontribute to shaping the national definition of diasporas (citizensor nationals abroad, second and first generations, non-residentnationals, etc.). Such examples include:


235

Mali Carte d’Identité Consulaire(CIC)Rwanda Consular Cards for Rwandan Nationals AbroadChile Matricula ConsularAlgeria Consular CardPakistan Pakistan Origin Card (POC) and the National

Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis(NICOP).

Establishing Partnerships: A Road to Development?

A main result of the questionnaire is that diasporas areconsidered as genuine business partners. Some countries, e.g.Tunisia, have professional/business networks as significantdiaspora interlocutors. Others employ their chambers ofcommerce to better include diaspora contributions in businessand trade. Chart 13 shows that 27 per cent of the respondents,including, for instance, Madagascar and Costa Rica, have built aformal partnership with their chambers of commerce. Therespondents identified a few formal transnational chambers ofcommerce, such as the Americano-Salvadorian Chambers ofCommerce (professional networks, private companies andinvestors) or the American-Bangladeshi Joint Chambers of


236

Commerce. With respect to incorporating chambers of commercewith foreign diaspora representatives, the Greek Commercial andIndustrial Chamber consults new enterprises owned by third-country nationals to facilitate their economic establishment inGreece and also organizes conferences for foreign businesspeople.

The most often referred to partnership by respondents is withinternational organizations to engage diasporas in the economicand social development of both home and host countries. Inparticular, middle-income and low-income countries considerinternational organizations as important partners. More than50 per cent of the respondents stated that they established apartnership with international organizations, including IOM,UNDP, ILO, OECD, UNHCR, USAID and the Council of Europe.African countries most often referred to various IOM and UNDPprojects, such as MIDA and TOKTEN (Transfer of KnowledgeThrough Expatriates Nationals).

Ethiopia organizes temporary and permanent returns of theirskilled nationals through the IOM-MIDA programme.

Mali organizes temporary and permanent returns of theirskilled nationals through the TOKTEN programme.


237

Rwanda works with IOM through the MIDA programme andwith UNDP through the TOKTEN programme.

Establishing a partnership with international organizationscan produce positive results by helping governments pursue adevelopment agenda through good international practices as wellas financial assistance. Still, governments need to establish andimplement their own policies and programmes to effectively reapthe best rewards from diasporas.

Other innovative partnerships with development, growth andpoverty reduction objectives include the following:

Attracting Financial Resources

Respondents recognize diasporas both as business partnersand as important sources of remittances. The importance offinancial transfers is largely confined to the LDCs.

Chart 15 shows the high interest of respondents in remittances.Approximately 57 per cent of the respondent countries stated

Financial intermediaries:

Sierra Leone (Forex) and Peru (Interbank);

Commercial Banks: La Banque de l’Habitat and la Banque de Développement du Mali;

Investment agencies: The Rwandan Investment and Export Promotion Agency (RIEPA) supports economic exchanges with the diasporas;

Non Governmental Organizations (NGO):

French NGO in the Kayes region of west Mali within the framework of French decentralized cooperation;

Public services (schools, hospitals):

Madagascar and Tunisia;

Recruitment agencies:

Bangladesh;

Institutions specialized in employment and business creation:

The Portuguese Institute for Employment collaborates with Cape Verde to recruit Cape Verdian diaspora professionals.


238

that they had facilitated remittance transfers from their diasporasabroad. Latin American countries, in particular, responded inconcrete terms. Colombia, Honduras and Chile presented theirspecific agreements with banks and consulates designed tofacilitate transfers. In addition, a number of African countriesrecognize the significance of remittances for their economies andsome respondents, such as Madagascar, focus on diminishingthe transaction costs.

Very few respondents offer financial packages to attractremittances from diasporas, for instance through special bonds(less than 10%) or tax exemptions (less than 35%). Some, forinstance Mali, grant tax exonerations to investors from diasporasfor the creation of enterprises.

The responses received regarding financial capital differedaccording to whether they were from less and more developedcountries (LDCs and MDCs). As already referred to, many of theEuropean countries responding to the questionnaire belong to


239

the MDC category, while African, Asian and Americanparticipants were in the low and middle-income categories. MostEuropean respondents stated that they had not taken anysignificant measures targeting diasporas’ financial and businessresources, while the countries from the Asia-Pacific and Africanregions showed great interest. In general, the Europeanrespondents are not enthusiastic about remittance transfers sinceremittances do not account for a significant portion of theirnational income. Also, those in charge of remittance issues arenot necessarily engaged in diaspora issues. For instance, severalEuropean respondents referred to investment agencies or theMinistry of Finance as responsible to seek and encourageinvestments from outside the country.

Chart 16 indicates that Asia-Pacific countries, such as thePhilippines and Bangladesh, are most actively facilitatingremittance transfers. The respondent from Bangladesh specificallymentioned that the country endeavoured to encourage its owndiasporas abroad to make remittances transfers and investmentsto their homeland. The Government of Pakistan offers custombenefits for those who transfer remittances to Pakistan.


240

Nevertheless, numerous respondents from Africa, the MiddleEast and the Americas also emphasized the importance ofremittances. For instance:

Ethiopia Ethiopia recently established guidelines re-garding the transfer of remittances fromdiasporas.

Benin The National Agency of the Beninese Abroadin Benin facilitates remittance transfers fromBeninese diasporas abroad.

Sierra Leone The country has engaged in a new scheme touse remittances for poverty alleviationprojects.

Colombia Work has been undertaken to reduce transfercosts and there is a gradual tax exemption onremittances.

Governments were also asked about their policies to informdiasporas about existing transfer mechanisms. Chart 17 showsthat countries in Africa and the Middle East undertake moreefforts to inform their diasporas of existing remittance transfermechanisms.


241

With concrete plans and schemes from the government,financial resources of diasporas can result in a wide range ofpartnerships with agencies or organizations targeting remittancesfrom diasporas for developmental initiatives. For example, incoordination with the Department of Trade and Industry, theGovernment of the Philippines works with the Chambers ofCommerce to provide foreign investors, including diasporasabroad, with business enterprise programmes and businessassistance services. The “Classroom Galing sa MamamayangPilipino Abroad” (CGMA) project was launched in 2003 andenvisions to build classrooms through the direct involvement ofOverseas Filipinos. It is a joint project between the Departmentof Labour and Employment, the Department of Foreign Affairs,and the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerceand Industry, channels remittances towards development projectsand helps in identifying local projects for investment bydiasporas. The Department of Labour and Employment, thePhilippines Overseas Employment Administration and theOverseas Workers Welfare Administration have also licensedrecruitment agencies and industry associations as partners indevelopment.


242

Though awareness of the importance of facilitating remittancetransfers appears significant, evidence on countries channellingremittances towards development, or identifying local projectsfor development is still limited, as shown in Chart 18.

Nevertheless, the questionnaire provides some examples ofinnovative programmes linking remittances and investmentsfrom the diasporas to development:

Mexico Programa Iniciativa Ciudadina, Three PlusOne.

Peru Solidarity with my people.Bosnia and Herzegovina

A foreign direct investment agency in Bosniaand Herzegovina specializes in diasporas.

Sierra Leone Remittances are channelled into poverty alle-viation projects.

Bangladesh The government identifies special areas fordiaspora investments.

Tunisia The government works to sensitize investmentinstitutions and regional development institu-tions, and encourages them to develop a data-base of potential economic projects at thedisposal of Tunisian business people abroad.

El Salvador The Programa Unidos por la Solidaridadprovides additional funds to the community forsocial and productive infrastructure invest-ments in collaboration with local authorities.

Governments increasingly recognize diasporas as a source ofremittances and other potential financial contribution as realbusiness partners able to make long-term contributions. Toenhance the potential of remittances, governments need toformulate more policies and programmes to channel suchfinancial and economic contributions towards local development.


243

Attracting Diasporas’ Available Human Capital is of GrowingInterest Worldwide

The previous section on data collection illustrated that manycountries collect general data on diasporas. A growing area ofgovernment action is the collection of data on the qualificationsand characteristics of diasporas. Chart 19 bellow shows that41 per cent of the respondents collect data on diasporaqualifications.

Countries actively engaged in data collection of qualifieddiasporas include:

Azerbaijan Maintains a resources and intellectual pool ofits diasporas.

Bangladesh Has built a Job Specification Database.Benin Has a Database of Health Professional Nation-

als Residing in France and a CompetenceDatabase.

Bulgaria Keeps track of the qualifications of its nation-als abroad.


244

Colombia Has established the Red Caldas researchernetwork.

El Salvador Collects data on its skilled diasporas abroad,such as a database of 150 outstandingSalvadorians, a database of 400 associations ofSalvadorians abroad, a database of companiesrun by Salvadorians abroad, and others. TheSalvadorian government also collects data ondiaspora qualifications and educational de-grees through its overseas consulates, and hascreated a Virtual Database of Talents Abroad.By means of a virtual magazine, Comunidaden Accion, El Salvador supports exchangeswith skilled diaspora members and organizestemporary returns of skilled nationals.

Kenya Keeps track of educators and medical practi-tioners abroad.

Mali Collects data through the TOKTEN pro-gramme.

Mexico Keeps track of the qualifications of itsdiaspora.

Nigeria Has a database of professional human re-sources.

Pakistan Has established a National Talent Pool, aliaison agency between Pakistani diasporasand Pakistani organizations seeking expertisein various fields. This agency also identifiesqualified nationals among the country’sdiaspora and matches them against areas ororganizations in need of certain expertise.

Philippines Has instituted the Brain Gain Network coord-inated with the e-commerce Council, thehighest ICT body in the government.

Portugal Keeps track of its professionals abroad.Tunisia Has created a Database of Competences

Abroad.


245

Uruguay Maintains a database of Uruguayans abroadwithin the Programa de Vinculacion.

Zimbabwe Conducts research on brain drain issues.

Though the respondents indicated the existence of suchprogrammes, the effectiveness of these programmes is not knownand an evaluation of such programmes is necessary.

Over one-third of respondents have a database on the skillsand knowledge profile of their diasporas as presented in Chart20.

Chart 20 indicates that it is overwhelmingly the Asia-Pacificrespondents who collect most information on skills andknowledge of their diasporas, followed by Africa and the MiddleEast region. The Philippines has become involved with itsdiasporas through the Filipino Resource Centre, which is usedto train and upgrade the skills of its diasporas. Ethiopia indicatedthat it had conducted virtual training sessions for engineering


246

students with the help of Ethiopian professors from Americanuniversities and had also organized video conference trainingsessions for nurses working with HIV/AIDS.

Chart 21 shows that 33 per cent of the respondents have aspecific objective to match such qualifications with a job offer inthe country of origin.

Professionals in the medical sector and research (educationand IT) appear to be the priority throughout the responses. Manycountries work with diaspora professional associations (Chart22). Ethiopia works with its health professionals in Sweden;Zambia and Cape Verde work with their medical professionalsin the EU; Australia has two fellowship initiatives for itsexpatriates funded by the National Health and Medical ResearchCouncil, and Germany attracts its academic and scientificdiasporas in the USA. The need for employing the human capitalof diasporas is more significant for Africa and the Middle Easterncountries, where the impact of brain drain has been heavily felt,although the responses show that the issue of brain drain is ofgrowing concern to all countries.


247

As far as government policies with an obvious return objectiveare concerned, such policies appear to be in place in countriesfrom Africa, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, while interest insuch policies remains low in the Americas and Europe (Chart23).


248

Charts 24 and 25 show that 22 per cent of the respondentspursue policies and programmes targeting the permanent returnof their skilled diasporas, while 27 per cent have organized suchpolicies and programmes for temporary returns. Virtualexchanges, mainly through the web, are more numerous (Chart26) and increasing.


249

Respondents stated that permanent returns occurred eitherspontaneously or with assistance from international organizationsand programmes such as MIDA or TOKTEN. They also indicatedthat physical returns are not a priority, either because they favourother types of programmes, targeted at virtual returns, or becauseof the costs of such permanent return programmes. This lack ofinterest for return programmes may also be explained by the factthat they already have implemented such programmes and areinterested in new areas. The questionnaire provides a fewexamples of return programmes conducted worldwide andconsidered successful.

In the Americas, Mexico responded that the governmentorganized permanent returns of its skilled nationals throughRepatriacion de Ex Becarios del CONACYT (Consejo Nacional deCiencia y Tecnología). Such programmes promote brain gain toMexico by encouraging CONACYT scholarship recipients toreturn and contribute to Mexican development. Lithuania alsoorganizes permanent returns of its skilled nationals, and promotesbrain gain by encouraging temporary and permanent returns ofskilled Lithuanians. Skilled Lithuanian researchers are attractedback from Europe and America to work in the education andscience institutions in Lithuania. The Ministry of Education and


250

Science awards scholarships for persons of Lithuanian descentto study in their country of origin, and encourages children ofLithuanian descent to learn their native language throughsecondary schools.

The Bulgarian government supports virtual exchanges withskilled people and organizes temporary returns of skilled peoplewith the Bulgarian Velikden Movement Activity and the activitiesof the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad. The Rojen 2000Movement also encourages temporary return migration of skilledBulgarian nationals, but the government does not seem to activelyencourage its skilled diasporas to return permanently to Bulgaria.The Filipino government organizes both temporary andpermanent returns of its skilled nationals through livelihoodprogrammes and projects for returning Filipino migrant workersin coordination with the private sector. Sierra Leone organizespermanent returns of teachers, nurses, doctors and engineers,for the purpose of engaging them as agents for nationaldevelopment. The Programme of Settlement of ForeignUkrainians Returning to Ukraine is funded by the governmentand should be completed by 2010.

The Kenyan government has “Political LeadershipPronouncements” and the “Come Home Campaign”, whichencourages the return of Kenyans abroad to contribute to thedevelopment of their country.

The issue of brain drain is more significant for less developedcountries. However, the responses from more developedcountries regarding their diasporas abroad show that brain drainhas become an issue for more developed countries as well. Suchspecific examples include Germany, which attracts academic andscientific experts from its diasporas in the United States, andAustralia, which has established the National Health and MedicalResearch Council (NHMRC) awards and the Burnet Award andHoward Florey Centenary Fellowships, designed to encourageAustralian researchers to come back from overseas.


Results of the Survey 'Engaging Diasporas as Agents for … · 2015. 3. 9. · RESULTS OF THE...

Documents

Transcript of Results of the Survey 'Engaging Diasporas as Agents for … · 2015. 3. 9. · RESULTS OF THE...