,

(...) ()

, 24-25 , 2010

( , 2006). ( , , 2006). . . , . , , . .*

, . : 0.75 . : , , , , , . , . , , , ( ) .*

300,000 1,000.000. [1] 1- 31- , 2006 ( )[2]. 164,586 . (71.1 ) , 14.5 , 6.5 , 2.8 , 4.9 ( , 2007). (70 ) , 14 , 8 , 4.5 . [1] , , . . [2] , 60 , . . . . .*

, .

. ( , ) , , , , .*

2007 . 1185 . . : , , , , - . *

*

N% 1185100 1139,51149,630225,519916,845738,6

80,8 % . 70.5% 25 44 . 72% .50% 47% - . 58.9% , 2.4% - . 32.7% . (63% 12.4% ) (26% 13%) . (0.5%).42.4% .53.6% .*

, *

ARMAZEKGZTAJUZB 29,13,611,426,217,147,7M 5,500,98,91,07,7 63,593,884,264,678,9440,300000,6 1,502,60,331,82,74,45,33,002,647,24,427,241,749,266 37,041,65048,738,724,510,547,812,36,085,1 12,330,124,610,614,65 65,367,268,468,260,864,1 / 22,42,77,021,224,630,9

6.4% 60% 1 4 36.4 % 1 2 , 23.4 % 3 4 .25% - 5-8 .

*

?*

ARMAZEKGZTAJUZB 25,138,132,516,631,223,22-3 37,745,142,130,840,738,14-5 24,615,021,130,524,124,16-10 9,61,82,616,93,511,211-12 200,92,60,53,1 12 0,800,92,300,4

( , $)*

400,7428,4279,4 262,3452,1 252,7M 260,9 486,8141,7 611,1 411,9 / 248,8

*

2006 498,89,61352,3 730,619,61270,0544,614,91259,2350,84,11331,7462,27,11094,1543,810,51521,9

*

N%USD / 111794,31401,8 1028,613391028,6136427923,5141419216,2110844237,31542 / 685,7356,6 100,8611121283231,917080,7425151,3495,2

ARMAZEKGZTAJUZB 83,669,67987,485,585 46,360,74448,74243,8 5739,35355,65763,5 25,525,91715,63530,0 5,15,474,374,4 30,90,97,612,0 0,51,81,800,50,2 3,52,71,83,63,54,2 3,26,21,81,315,00,50,900,30,50,7

*

Chart1

83.6

46.3

57

25.5

5.1

3

0.5

3.5

3.2

0.5

Reasons for sending remittances

N

99183.6

54946.3

67657

30225.5

615.1

363

60.5

423.5

383.2

60.5

Reasons for sending remittances

Reasons for sending remittances

Transfers channel by cash remit

Share of Respondents who Used Channel

%

Bank/MTO25

Post office1.2

Courier service0.6

Carried by HH migrant50

Carried by friend/relative47

Carried by other individuals7.3

Others0.8

Transfers channel by cash remit

3

1111

Transfer Channels for cash remittances

% * - .*

/ * 124,673,80,6 057,1420,94,437,757,9008,990,11133,565,501,119,778,60,7

*

, , , %USDUSD% / 25125254231,21043870,9 0,61408540,6 501002037 / 471494733 7,371928,740,866100,4

*

Chart1

251111

1.2

0.6

50

47

7.3

0.8

2

251111

1.2

0.6

50

47

7.3

0.8

Transfer Channels for cash remittances

Reasons for sending remittances

N

To cover receivers basic expenses99183.6

To provide luxury items for receiver54946.3

To cover receivers emergency expenses67657

To repay receivers debts30225.5

To repay senders debts615.1

To invest in a business for the sender363

To invest in a business for the receiver60.5

To buy assets for the sender423.5

To buy assets for the receiver383.2

Others60.5

Reasons for sending remittances

Reasons for sending remittances

Transfers channel by cash remit

Share of Respondents who Used Channel

%

/ 25

1.2

0.6

50

/ 47

7.3

0.8

Transfers channel by cash remit

3

1111

Transfer Channels for cash remittances

*

/ / 27,70,70,548,146,87,70,712,83,10,857,747,65,31,3- 52,23,50,918,627,41,80,938,64,4030,743,04,42,68,60,70,367,552,08,30,734,70131,652,35,00,521,00,60,658,947,09,60,6

, / , /, . . , , . , , . /, , , . /, , , . , , , . *

*

N% 332,8 115297,2 363,0 22218,7 988,3 41635,1 , 28524,1 484,1 ( / , )423,5 00,0

(3/4) . , . , , , . , , .*

(/, , ) , . , .., , , , . , , , 2-3%, . , . , . . , , , .

*

2007 2005 2006 . , , 2005- , $ 735 ., 2006- - 962 . , . , , , , .*

:

. . : . . , . , . , , . , , . , , , , . , , 2-3%, . , -.

*

: . . . , . . , .

: / .

*

!*

*Most of the migrants participating in the survey state themselves legal. However, reliability of this data is not strong. Interviewers noticed that legal migrants in general were more willing to participate in the survey, than illegal ones. Moreover, one have to take into account that, according to observations of the interviewers, respondents were not eager to answer this particular question, often changed their answers, and hesitated to acknowledge that they were illegal (undocumented) migrants. Therefore, basing on this survey, we can not make a conclusion that majority of labour migrants in Kazakhstan are legal.*The most popular option among respondents in 2006 was to send remittances 2 or 3 times (37,7%). Almost equal are groups that sent remittances once and 4-5 times (around quarter each). The differences in country groups are not very large and do not form noticeable patterns.*The average income of migrants participating in the survey is about USD 400 per month. This is approximately equal to the average monthly salary in Kazakhstan, compared to the data of National Statistical Agency ( $ 332 in 2006, in first half of 2007 50000 tenge, or approximately $413).Firstly, there is a huge difference between the average income of mal and female migrants. The average income of men exceeds income of women in 1.5 times. Secondly, the income of married migrants is significantly higher than the income of not married ones. Thirdly, it is obvious that the income is growing with the length of stay in Kazakhstan. The only exceptions are those who live in Kazakhstan for more than 15 years. They probably live in Kazakhstan from Soviet times and have other reasons for work in Kazakhstan than the rest of respondents. Fourthly, the legal status of migrants strongly affects their income. Those labour migrants who already got citizenship of Kazakhstan have the highest income. Registered migrants in average get significantly more money than non-legalized workers do.*In total 1185 respondents of the survey sent USD 1.6 million in 2006. The average amount of remittance sent is around USD 500, average cost of transaction is USD 9,6 (one have to take into account that a lot of respondents did not pay transaction cost because they sent remittances with relatives or friends, or transferred money themselves while visiting home countries).From the point of view of countries of origin, there are several differences among respondents. Those sending remittances to Armenia have highest transaction costs and highest average amount sent each time. This means that they prefer to make transactions more rarely. Migrants sending remittances to Azerbaijan have second highest cost of transaction. Both Armenian and Azeri migrants in 2006 sent less than average amount of remittances. However, the lowest total amount was sent by Tajik workers, though their average transaction costs are not so high (they probably prefer to use informal transfer channels).*The persons/ households to which the respondent sends remittances are mainly relatives or HH of relatives (94%). Average amount of annual transfer is $1401.8. Uzbek (37.3%) and Kyrgyz (23.5%) citizens send money often than other groups, amount of their transfers are higher than average: $1542 and $1414 respectively. Rarely migrants send money to friends, just 5.7 % in total sample. Amount of money transferred to friends modest - $356.6 in year. In this case also Uzbek and Kyrgyz migrants more often send money. *Most important reasons for sending money are to cover receivers basic expenditure (83.6%). It is looking similar for all countries. The next important reasons are to provide luxury items for receivers (46.3%), to cover receivers emergency expenses (57%) and to repay receivers debts (25.5%). To repay senders debt noted 5.1 % of respondents - at the same level for each country. Sending money as a reason to invest in business for the sender more important for Kyrgyz migrants (7.6%), and partly for Uzbek migrants (2%), and investing in a business for receiver is not reason for money sending. To buy assets for the sender and for the receiver rarely but on equal level noted by senders, 3.5% and 3.2% respectively. *Most popular method used by the receiving HH to collect the money is delivering to house (73.8%), it varies from 90.1% in Kyrgyzstan to 42% in Armenia. Next popular method is collecting of money from bank/ MTO. In this case data varies in the reverse order: from 57.1% in Armenia and 8.9% in Kyrgyzstan. It depends on the distance from Kazakhstan to home countries of remittance-senders. Just 4.4% of receivers collected money paid into bank accounts, all of them in Azery. *Migrants used formal and informal channels for sending of remittances. For 50% of respondents the most important channel in 2006 was sending money through HH migrants. It is the cheapest way (no costs) through which the respondents sent average $1002 per sender. Share of this channel in total cash remittances sent is 37%. The highest amount ($1494) senders trust to friend/relative thanks to low average cost per sender - $7. For 47% respondents it is the next important channel. Share of this channel in total cash remittances sent is 33%. Banks/MTO is used by 25% of respondents; amount per sender is $1252, with average cost per sender in $54. Share of this channel in total cash remittances seny is 23%. Overall, official channels (i.e. banks/MTO, post, courier service) are used by 26.8 % of migrants. 7.3% of senders used also caring by other individuals; average amount per sender is $719, cost per sender is $28.7. Share of this channel in total cash remittances sent is 4%. Less important channels are post offices, courier services and others (approximately 1%). By courier service average amount per sender is $1408, despite the fact that average cost per sender is also high - $87, but this channel used rarely (less than 1%). Average amount for transfers by post office is $1043, but highest average cost - $87 makes it unpopular (less than 1%).*There are gender differences in use of particular channels for remittances. Using of official channels by migrants men (28.9%) was higher than by women (16.7%), mainly because they in twice often used bank/MTO. Post office was more preferable for women than for men. Most preferable channels for migrants male were carried by HH migrant (48.1%) and by friend/relative (46.8%). For women sending money by friends was at the same level as for men. But they more often used sending money by HH migrant (57.7). Using of courier service is at the same low level for men and women. Differences among countries are important. Migrants from Armenia preferred official channels for sending money (56.6%), in first of all bank/MTO (52%). Kyrgyz migrants are the least interested in official channels (9.6%). For them most important channels are carried by HH migrant (67.5%) and by friends (52%). Its is logically because Kyrgyzstan very close to Kazakhstan and there are a lot of every day people flow between countries. Non-official transfers have a low cost and its a main reason for migrants preferences. Migrants from Azerbaijan also often use bank/MTO (38.6%) and post office (4.4%). The reason same as for migrants from Armenia, it depends on the distance between our countries. But non official channels: carried by friends/relatives (43%) and by HH migrants (30.7) are also often used by Azery migrants. Migrants from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan send money through HH migrant (31.6%, 58.9%, respectively), and friend/relative (52.3%, 47%). Tajik migrants often use bank/MTO (34.7%) than migrants from Uzbekistan (21%).There are differences in use of channels depends on type of employment. Seasonal (29.3%) and regular workers (27.5%) use official channels more than commuting migrants (4.6%). Its clear because working migrants busy and have a salary. At the same time all of these migrants use HH migrant and friends for sending money. Legal migrants often use bank transfers than Kazakh citizens and illegal migrants.