Migration: GOB ignores priority issues at its own peril

Whether stated or not so openly, but migration economics is a great "savior" of the economy. It has been there for a while and continues to be so much to the pleasure of the state and its command groups but to some extent taken for granted. And that may be one reason why most focus of the authorities has fallen on controlling the structure and delivery mechanism of the migration economy instead of taking it to the next level.
The policy view is a short-term one and carries more threats for the "controlling" section of society than the perceived "recipients" of plans and policies. While it is not expected to discuss the implications of a post-migration economy, the fact remains that the sector is under many kinds of pressure both in external hiring and internal dynamics of migration.
There are several benefits that are gained by all in the country due to migration but in particular to the formal sector. Some of the more notable ones are (a) It brings in income from abroad in dollars which accrues to the national treasury. This amount is important not just as maintaining a critical level of dollar reserve that can be used in funding imports but providing security and balance and thus higher political stability allowing continued governance of the ruling class; (b) It relieves the government of the functional responsibility to provide employment or a wider economic life to a very large section of the people. The estimated number of migrants range from 20 to 30 million as per various sources. With an average household membership of 5, the number comes to 125 + million which means the authorities are relieved of their responsibility to provide socio-economic assistance to them. The state literally looks after only half of its people; (c) As such a significant population segment is not only employed but very remuneratively, the government is relieved of the threat of any pressure that may be exerted socio-economically by an under-employed or impoverished citizenry. Hence they have become the best bet for stability as the rural areas are far more stable and can manage itself on its own. In many ways therefore migration has become the key to the long term socio-economic certainty that prevents unrest.
Without large scale migration of the working class sending money home, current Bangladesh would look very different.
From actions taken over time and policies formulated, it appears that the government is very keen to control the structure and regulate it as is its tendency as an authority. It has offered some services it is true but the total input has been limited and its existing bureaucratic and local government machinery are not in tune with the migration pattern that exists in Bangladesh.
Given the high dependence on migration economics for socio-political stability the attitude is that of trying to control a "delinquent" sector. Its major aims are limited when it comes to facilitating migration at which it hasn't done well but is now trying to control the intermediaries.
While discipline must exist in any sector, the process has not been done to address the role of intermediaries by the GOB itself which is largely responsible for making work related migration so expensive. It's now felt by the migrant communities that in the name of helping them, the GOB wishes to oust the "dalal"s and engage themselves in the informal sector in that role or as supervisors. Of course once it does, informal payments -call it by whatever name- becomes the norm.
There are two levels of risks relating to this sector. One is about what is already in progress and the other is what waits in the future. At the moment, three issues are becoming visible.
The migrants like most others have low confidence in the banking sector and given the nature of the financial sector, most fear that their money will not reach the destination. The authorities may claim that they have taken many decisions to enhance confidence but the increasing and expanding presence of the hundi system says otherwise. It means that the money stays in the informal sector which is fine but the economic opportunities for investment are not high with pressure building on rural area-based sectors including land.
However, remittance is about clean money which deserves high returns that will benefit the formal sector as well. Absence of any profitable financial instruments and lack of capacity of such institutions is preventing long term economic stability and investment for security including post work life of the migrants.
No government agency exists to help the migrants abroad and the embassies have fallen way behind in providing services to them. Why this need is not fulfilled is another matter but the gap is probably a result of not recognizing migrants as high value clients of the state.
Some services are now being provided but the most important one is in creating a system for accessing skill development training and providing linkages to quality employment. While the authorities wouldn't like to admit it, the migration sector has grown to this size on its own. Since skills accessing has not been a priority, they are not aware of the threats to the low skill work they are into both in the Middle east and SE Asia.
The GOB has the resources and network to do this but certainly lacks the capacity to mobilize it so push from the private sector players and international agencies is very critical. This can help the next batch of migrants to make the critical shift to the sector where the demand is trending rather than where it's stagnating.
Clearly, a more professionally competent government agency is needed to provide the services which aren't there. In a crisis, it's the government which will be at its wrong end.

[email protected]