BD earns $13.5b remittance in 2017, says IFAD report

It falls behind Pakistan, Nepal, Lanka

Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Bangladesh has fallen behind its three other South Asian neighbours -- Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka -- in growth of remittance inflow in the last one decade, reports UNB.
However, the country was ahead of its closest neighbour India in the inward remittance growth during the same period, according to a report released by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) on Monday.
The IFAD report said, Bangladesh earned remittance worth US $13.5 billion, equivalent to 6.1 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP), last year. Over the past one decade, the country posted a steady remittance growth rate of 4.2 per cent, much lower than Pakistan (10.8), Nepal (9.8) and Sri Lanka (9.4) but higher than India (3.3 per cent).
These statistics were made available by the IFAD report -- RemitSCOPE -- which will be presented at the Global Forum on Remittances, Investments and Development - Asia Pacific in Kuala Lumpur today (Tuesday).
The forum will bring together more than 300 policymakers, private sector stakeholders and civil society leaders to map out the road ahead for enhanced remittances.
In 2017, migrant workers sent US $256 billion to their families in the Asia-Pacific region, according to the report -- 'RemitSCOPE -- Remittance markets and opportunities - Asia and the Pacific.'
While remittances benefit about 320 million family members in the region, most of them in rural areas, remittance markets still need to transform to ensure that families can benefit fully from the flows, stated the IFAD report.
India (US$69 billion), China (US$64 billion) and the Philippines (US$33 billion) are the three largest remittance-receiving countries in the world; Pakistan (US$20 billion) and Vietnam (US$14 billion) are also in the top 10.
In Bangladesh, 65 per cent of the total value of remittances goes to rural areas, the report said pointing out that "Rural remittances are particularly important in Asia and the Pacific because remittances 'count' more in small towns and villages where living expenses are lower, and typically the cost of sending remittances to rural areas is higher than to corridors linking high-volume urban markets."