Remittance receiving households spend 8 percentage points more on health, 4‐5 percentage points more on education, and 28 percentage points more on housing when compared to what they would spend without the transfers.
What's interesting about the figures linked above, however, is that for some countries, including a few big remittance receiving ones like Mexico and Bangladesh, the numbers are pretty up-to-date.
NR = non remittance receiving households, RR = remittance receiving households, ATE = average treatment effect.
Secondary school enrollment rate is 83%, with the remittance receiving group being 5.7% higher.
Specifically, no top external remittance receiving districts share a border with Kathmandu, and all have more than three districts to cross in reaching Kathmandu.
In Appendix C, Table 10, we show that the results are robust to running the models on 10 high emigration and remittance receiving countries (El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Guatemala, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, and Colombia).
These results are in line with findings from Adams and Cuecuecha ( 2010 ): remittance receiving households spend more at the margin on housing, education, and health in Guatemala.
From the ECV‐4, the previous round of the survey, we construct the variable "Remittances in the community in 1999" which is the proportion of remittance receiving households in the community in the year 1999.
We see that 7.5% of individuals between 12 and 17 reside in a remittance receiving household, meaning that over 130 thousand secondary school-aged children receive income from abroad.
But, remittance receiving households in Tonga enjoyed a much higher savings rate than those that did not receive remittances [ 17].
INCITE has published results from a research study analyzing how the timing of remittances received by women in migrant-sending countries impacts women's health and autonomy.
