+977 9801193336

Tag: Remittances

NIPoRe DatavizNIPoRe Updates

NDV0011 – Migrant Remittance Inflows for South Asia, Southeast Asia Plus China


According to the September 2019 briefing Document for the World Bank Board, there were more than 164 million documented international migrant workers in 2018 of whom 68 million were women. Over the years, money sent back home by these migrant workers have been benefiting receiving countries via investments, trade, and transfer of skills and technology. In 2019, remittance flows to low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are projected to reach UD$ 550 billion which is more than three times the total development aid flow to these LMICs.

Remittances have been benefiting migrant workers’ countries of origin in numerous ways. In one of his TED Talks, in 2014, Economist Dilip Ratna has highlighted some of the most crucial aspects of remittance. Moreover, the UN DESA has identified some key facts on why remittances matter for the global economy. Similarly, on the occasion of the International Day of Family Remittance, IFAD has highlighted ten ways in which remittances have been transforming the global economy in meaningful ways. Furthermore, the World Economic Forum notes that remittances are crucial for many of the LMICs and discusses the cases of India and the Philippines. In 2018, remittances accounted for almost three percent and ten percent of GDPs for India and the Philippines respectively.


For our analysis, we have taken into account remittance inflows data (only) to South and Southeast Asian economies plus China. We have used the World Bank data for our analysis and analyzed data for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2016 – 2019. Except for Nepal, where remittance inflows for the year 2019 are projected to account for about thirty percent of country’s GDP, no other economies in South and Southeast Asia plus China have a double-digit figure for remittances as the share of GDP for 2019.

Data Source: World Bank (2019)

South Asia

With some exceptions for a few years, overall, remittance inflows to South Asian economies are on an increasing trend. For Afghanistan, we don’t have data for the years 2000 and 2005. In 2010, the economy received a total of US$ 346 million in remittance. For 2018, this remittance inflow figures have increased by about three times and Afghanistan received US$ 920 million in remittances. However, in 2019, remittance flows to this South Asian economy has been projected to decline by about US$ 36 million. On the other hand, Bangladesh had received about US$ 2 billion in remittances in 2000. With a slight decline in 2016, the country had received more than US$ 15 billion in remittances in 2018 and this figure is projected to increase by US$ 2 billion and become more than US$ 17.5 billion in 2019.

From the available data, it seems Bangladesh and Maldives receive small amount of remittances. Though there has not been a substantial increase in the latter’s remittance inflows between 2000 and 2018, the former has improved a lot in terms of the amount of remittances it receives each year. For Bhutan there are no data for the years 2000 and 2005 and in 2010, the country had received about US$ 8 million in remittances. By 2018, this figure has increased by more than seven times and reached about US$ 58 million. For 2019, Bhutan is expected to further improve in this area. On the other hand, Maldives had received about US$ 2 million in remittances in 2000, same as in 2005, and the country had witnessed an inflow of US$ 3 million remittances into the economy. For the years 2016-2018, it had received US$ 4 million each year and is projected to remain constant for 2019.

In the case of South Asia, India has been the largest recipient of remittances for all years considered for this analysis. In 2000, it had received a total of about US$ 13 billion in remittances. The economy saw a decline in the figure in 2016 but it continues to improve the remittance inflows in recent years. In 2018, India had received more than US$ 78 billion in remittances – more than six times the amount it had received in 2000.

Nepal is the only economy in South Asia that has witnessed remittance inflows by more than eighty times between 2000 and 2018. In 2000, Nepal had received about US$ 112 million in remittance and this figure rose to more than US$ 8 billion in 2018. In 2019, Nepal’s remittance receipts are projected to improve further and become more than US$ 8.6 billion.

Pakistan, on the other hand, have increased the remittance receipts by more than twenty times between 2000 and 2018, i.e., in 2000, the economy had received more than US$ 1 billion in remittance and it has become more than US$ 21 billion in 2018. In 2019, the receipts are projected to further improve and reach almost US$ 22 billion. Finally, Sri Lanka too has been receiving more remittances in recent years. In 2000, it had received a little more than US$ 1 billion in remittances and this amount became more than US$ 7 billion in 2018. In 2019, the amount is projected to increase further and add more than US$ 200 million than the previous year.

Southeast Asia

Brunei and Singapore primarily serve as the key destinations for international migrant workers. As a result, these two economies in Southeast Asia serve as the remittance outflows hubs.

In Southeast Asia; Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Vietnam have improved a lot in terms of remittances recipient countries. Between 2000 and 2018, these economies have observed considerable rise in the amount of money that they receive as remittances. For example, Indonesia received about US$ 1 billion remittances in 2000 and in 2018 this amount has become more than US$ 11 billion, an increase by more than eleven times. Similarly, Myanmar had received only US$ 342 million remittances in 2000 and by 2018 it has increased by more than 28 times and reached about US$ 3 billion. For the Philippines, between 2000 and 2018, remittance inflows have increased by almost five times, i.e., remittance inflows increased to about US$ 34 billion in 2018 from about US$ 7 billion in 2000. For Vietnam, between 2000 and 2018, the amount has increased by more than twelve times. In 2000, it had received more than US$ 1.3 billion and in 2018 the amount became US$ 16 billion.

Like Nepal (one of the two landlocked economies in the region) in the case of South Asia, Lao PDR (also a landlocked economy) is the most benefited economy in terms of remittance recipient economy between 2000 and 2018. In 2000, the country had received just US$ 1 million in remittance but it 2018 the amount has become US$ 239 million, i.e., an increase by about 239 times.

Cambodia, Malaysia and Thailand have also seen an upward trend in remittance inflows during 2000 – 2018 period. While Cambodia saw growth in amount by more than eleven times – an increase from US$ 121 million in 2000 to about US$ 1.5 billion in 2018, Malaysia has seen an increase in remittance inflows by about five times between 2000 and 2018 – from about US$ 342 million in 2000 to about US$ 1.7 billion in 2018. Similarly, Thailand has increased the inflows amount by more than four times – an increase from about US$ 1.7 billion in 2000 to about US$ 7.5 billion in 2018.

In 2019, except for Thailand, other seven Southeast Asian economies are projected to further improve remittance inflows into their economies.


Like Nepal and Lao PDR, China Mainland is also one of the few economies in the region to increase remittance inflows by a large margin. Between 2000 and 2018, the Mainland has witnessed a growth in remittance inflows by more than 88 times. In 2000, it had received about US$ 758 million but this amount became about US$ 67.5 billion in 2018. However, the trends for Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR are not encouraging.

For Hong Kong, the growth in amount has been minimal between 2000 and 2018, i.e., a growth by just about three times. However, for Macao, though the amount for 2019 are projected to improve, this Chinese Special Administrative Region has seen declining inflows trend between 2000 and 2018, i.e.m decline from about US$ 53 million in 2005 to just US$ 25 million in 2018.

Note: For the current dataviz, we have taken into consideration remittance inflows into analyzed economies only.

Research Commentaries

NRC0003 – Libra and the Future of Nepal’s Financial System

Libra and the Future of Nepal’s Financial System

Jaya Jung Mahat


Last month, after years of rumors and user speculations, Facebook finally announced the company’s plan to launch Libra – a new cryptocurrency – early next year. Though we are yet to understand Libra’s detailed arrangement, economists and policymakers have already begun discussing the potential impacts that this new digital currency may bring to the existing global financial system and on few selected major economies. This commentary discusses potential impacts of Libra on Nepal’s financial system. It focuses on four major areas that Libra is likely to have considerable effects on – transfer of remittances, impacts on the “unbanked” population, disruption of existing payment gateways and most importantly questions regarding government regulation of cryptocurrencies.


Last month, on June 18, Facebook, along with 27 founding members coming from six distinct sectors announced their plans to launch a new cryptocurrency to be called Libra early next year. Unlike traditional currencies, Libra will not be backed by central banks. However, contrasting other existing cryptocurrencies, Libra will be supported by a reserve of assets and currency’s value will be determined by a currency basket to be finalized by the Libra Associations members. This announcement has prompted a heated debate among economists, central bankers, policy makers and the techpreneurs about the future of cryptocurrency and how Libra will affect the overall global financial system.

This is What We Know About Libra

While making the announcement, Libra Association has also released a 12-page long White Paper highlighting key aspects of this to-be launched new currency. As per the document, Libra aims to be one of the simple global financial currencies and establish a global financial infrastructure that enables the Association to empower billions of people. It is built on a secure blockchain system that also allows Libra to scale up if needed. Moreover, the currency is backed by a reserve of assets that will ultimately define the value of this currency. Also, an independent non-profit association based in Switzerland will govern the Libra ecosystem.

As trust is a key factor for overall success of this new currency, the Libra Association has tried its best to have as many founding members as possible from sectors that have close links with the global financial system. Following are the founding members of the Association (in alphabetical order) and the latter aims to add about 72 more members before going public early next year:

  • Blockchain: Anchorage, Bison Trails, Coinbase, Inc., and Xapo Holdings Limited
  • Nonprofit, multilateral organizations and academic institutions: Creative Destruction Lab, Kiva, Mercy Corps, and Women’s World Banking
  • Payments: Mastercard, Mercado Pago, PayPal, PayU (Naspers’ fintech arm), Stripe, and Visa
  • Technology and marketplaces: Booking Holdings, eBay, Facebook/Calibra, Farfetch, Lyft, Spotify AB, and Uber Technologies, Inc.
  • Telecommunications: Iliad and Vodafone Group
  • Venture Capital: Andreessen Horowitz, Breakthrough Initiatives, Ribbit Capital, Thrive Capital, and Union Square Ventures

On the operational side, Libra will be based on Libra Blockchain that is constructed by taking into consideration three core requirements of a modern digital global currency: scalability, security and flexibility. In terms of a currency reserve, Libra will be fully backup up by the Libra Reserve that will further be supported by a competitive network of exchanges buying and selling the currency coins.

Ongoing Debates

As soon as the news of Libra came into public, there has been hot debates among economists, policymakers, central bankers and the techpreneurs regarding the safe regulation of this new currency, people’s trust on this system and how it will affect existing global financial system.

Though there are some good aspects of Facebook, based on the platform’s past controversies, many critics have cast their doubts over Libra’s hidden goal. Writing for the Project Syndicate, Columbia Law Professor Katharina Pistor has asked global stakeholders to halt Libra before it gets launched next year.

Furthermore, economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Kausik Basu have raised the issues of online crimes; including those related to compromising user privacy and money laundering; and inflation respectively. Also, the former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Stephen Grenville, panics the possibility of Libra causing more severe future capital-market volatility.

To add more, Financial Times’ chief economics commentator – Martin Wolf – fears that Libra may give birth to the existence of a single bank dominated global financial system. In the same line, cryptocurrency critic David Gerard argues that Libra is based on ideological concepts that hardly work in the real world.

Amid all these skepticisms, there are few individual critics and selected institutions that view Libra a desired disruption and they believe it will help global financial system more inclusive and less costly. The Banker, a London-based financial affairs magazine, has published an editorial saying that Libra, despite few shortcomings, will bring in more businesses for all stakeholders involved in the financial sector. Similarly, other critics praise Libra for it’s potential to reinvent the traditional costly ways of cross-border transfer of remittances worldwide and in particular, for Africa, the new currency may help the region to bring in more people into the formal financial system and also reduce the costs of remittance transfers into the region.

Libra and Nepal’s Financial System

Considering growing penetration rates of mobile phones (134.31%) and internet (61.83%), I believe there should be enough debates on Libra and all possible ways it may disrupt Nepal’s existing financial system before last month’s announcement becomes a reality in 2020. However, I do not see that much of debates happening lately – be it among the Nepal Government stakeholders and/or among the key private-sector players, including major banks and financial institutions (BFIs), investors and the techpreneurs.

To stir needed debates in this regard, from what is available so far, I can think of Libra affecting Nepal’s financial sectors in the following four areas:

  1. Transfer of Remittances: According to the most recent Migration and Development Brief, Nepal, with $8.1 billion remittances inflows into the country in 2018, ranks 19th worldwide and fourth in South Asia in terms of the amount of remittances it has received in that year alone. In regards to the remittances and percentage of GDP (28%), Nepal ranks in fifth place worldwide after Tonga, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Haiti. As Libra plans to minimize the costs relating to the cross-border transfer of remittances, concerned stakeholders in Nepal should analyze how this new invention may affect one of the key pillars of Nepali economy.
  2. Impacts on the “Unbanked” Population: As per Nepal’s Central Bank, as of mid-May 2019, the country has 176 BFIs – 28 commercial banks, 32 development banks, 24 finance companies, 91 Microfinance institutions and one infrastructure development bank. Altogether, they have 8,319 branches across the country. Despite these developments, a large percentage of Nepali population remains unbanked. A 2014 report has highlighted disappointing facts related to Nepalis’ access to finance. As per the report, 18% of Nepali adults are fully excluded from existing formal and informal financial products and services. Moreover, 21% of local adults use informal channels while managing their finances. In the light of these evidence, key government and private stakeholders should organize frequent and intensive debates on the possible impacts Libra might bring to “unbanked” Nepalis and economy’s BFIs. While doing so, these stakeholders should also plan their actions to minimize potential risks from Libra when it goes into implementation in 2020.
  3. Disruption of Payment Gateways: To enhance people’s easy access to available financial products and services, in recent years, Nepali techpreneurs have come up with intermediary payment gateways. In addition to such services developed and owned by BFIs; E-sewa, iPay and Khalti are three of the most promising such platforms owned by Nepal’s techpreneurs. As Libra’s current plans are expected to disrupt payment gateways around the globe, Nepali techpreneurs working in this sector should also be cautious enough to minimize the damage that Libra may cause to their platforms.
  4. Regulation of Cryptocurrency: As of now, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is yet to make an institutional position on Libra. However, the Fund has clearly stated its position on cryptocurrency earlier stating it would support government set-up cryptocurrencies. Bitcoins and similar cryptocurrencies are currently banned in Nepal. As the global financial system keeps on evolving and the IMF, the key regulator of global financial system, also encouraging central banks to adapt to changing circumstances, the concerned authorities in Nepal should also think of timely updating country’s existing financial system to catch up with the rapidly evolving global financial system.
  1. Basu, K. (2019, June 27). Why Policymakers Should Fear Libra. Project Syndicate. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/facebook-libra-inflation-control-problem-by-kaushik-basu-2019-06
  2. Caplen, B. (2019, June 25). Editor’s Blog – Fear not, Facebook’s Libra is good for banks. The Banker. Retrieved from https://www.thebanker.com/Editor-s-Blog/Fear-not-Facebook-s-Libra-is-good-for-banks
  3. Conlin, B. (2018, July 19). 7 Unexpected Ways Facebook Is Good for You. Business News Daily. Retrieved from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2534-facebook-benefits.html
  4. Dana, J. (2019, July 05). Libra shows global remittance ripe for change. Asia Times. Retrieved from https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/07/article/libra-shows-global-remittance-ripe-for-change/
  5. Gerard, D. (2019, June 24). Facebook’s New Currency Has Big Claims and Bad Ideas. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/24/971554-facebook-bitcoin-libra-crypto-bad
  6. Grenville, S. (2019, July 01). The Coming Libra Panics. Project Syndicate. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/libra-capital-flows-fuel-panic-by-stephen-grenville-2019-07
  7. Hackett, R., Roberts, J.J., and Wieczner, J. (2019, June 17). Facebook’s Cryptocurrency Ambitions Provoke Heated Debate – The Ledger. Furtune. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2019/06/17/facebook-cryptocurrency-project-libra/
  8. Inman, P. (2018, November 14). IMF says governments could set up their own cryptocurrencies. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/14/imf-says-governments-could-set-up-their-own-cryptocurrencies
  9. Libra Association (2019, June 18). Founding Members. Retrieved from https://libra.org/en-US/association/#founding_members
  10. Libra Association (2019, June 18). Libra White Paper. Retrieved from https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/
  11. Libra Association (2019, June 18). The Reserve. Retrieved from https://libra.org/en-US/about-currency-reserve/#the_reserve
  12. Masuku, A. (2019, July 07). Will Facebook’s digital money Libra be good for Africa?. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48882301
  13. Noonan, L. and Megaw, N. (2019, June 18). Will Facebook’s Libra currency shake up financial services?. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/5c0dbb2c-91eb-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2
  14. NRB. (2017, August 13). Central Bank Circular on Bitcoin and Related Businesses in Nepal. Retrieved from https://nrb.org.np/fxm/notices/BitcoinNotice.pdf
  15. NRB. (2019). Current Macroeconomic and Financial Situation of Nepal (Based on Ten Months’ Data of 2018/19. Retrieved from https://www.nrb.org.np/ofg/current_macroeconomic/CMEs%20Ten%20Months%20English%202075-76-Final.pdf
  16. NTA. (2019, May). MIS Report Chaitra, 2075 (15 March, 2019 – 13 April, 2019). Retrieved from https://nta.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/MIS-Chaitra-2075.pdf
  17. Pistor, K. (2019, June 20). Facebook’s Libra Must Be Stopped. Project Syndicate. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/facebook-libra-must-be-stopped-by-katharina-pistor-2019-06
  18. Stiglitz, J.E. (2019, July 02). Thumbs Down to Facebook’s Cryptocurrency. Project Syndicate. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/facebook-libra-facilitates-crime-money-laundering-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2019-07
  19. The World Bank. (2019, April). Migration and Remittances: Recent Developments and Outlook (Migration and Development Brief 31). Retrieved from https://www.knomad.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/Migrationanddevelopmentbrief31.pdf
  20. UNCDF. (2014). Nepal FinScope Consumer Survey 2014. Retrieved from http://www.finmark.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BROCH_FS_Nepal_2014.pdf
  21. Wolf, M. (2019, June 25). Facebook enters dangerous waters with Libra cryptocurrency. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/07c05fba-b1c4-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399
  22. Yadav, N. (2019, February 05). 15 Years of Facebook, 15 Years of Controversy: A Timeline of Events. First Post. Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/15-years-of-facebook-15-years-of-controversy-a-timeline-of-events-6028641.html