The Migration Conundrum
27 January 2013
Last month, when I was at Tribhuvan International Airport to take an early morning flight out of Kathmandu, for the first time I was struck by the scale of workers migrating out of Nepal. Although I had read a lot about it, this was something else altogether. By my estimate, some 75 per cent of passengers at the airport were migrant workers — people either employed or seeking employment in countries as far flung as those in Southeast Asia or the Middle East.
Several were leaving the country for the first time, and it was hard to miss their anxiety and apprehension. Leaving home to work elsewhere is no easy task, and going to an alien land where there is little or no familiarity with the language, culture and traditions is even more difficult.
Moreover, over the last few years, several awful stories relating to the treatment meted out to migrant workers — particularly in the Middle East — have surfaced. Despite this, thousands of youth are leaving Nepal every year.
Between 2001 and 2011 in Nepal, workers’ remittances increased from a mere USD 147 million to USD 4.01 billion, a 27-fold increase in 10 years, according to the World Bank. These made up for 21.23 per cent of Nepal’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011 (at current USD), up from just 2.45 per cent of GDP in 2001. Needless to say, remittances were Nepal’s largest source of foreign exchange by far. In contrast, between 2001 and 2011, the value of exports of goods and services increased from USD 937.24 million to USD 1.86 billion only.
On the other hand, revenue from international tourism — one of the mainstays of Nepal’s economy — increased from USD 191 million in 2001 to just USD 398 million in 2011 (World Bank). In other words, migrant worker remittances bring in 10 times more money than tourism.
A substantially higher income relative to what one can earn at home is obviously a key motivation to work overseas, but also a simplistic and broad brushed explanation — one that fails to address other key factors such as unavailability of jobs, a qualitative mismatch between demand and supply of labour, lack of economic growth, failure of successive governments to address any of these issues, and political instability.
The consequence of political instability in Nepal is poor governance. Since 1990, the average lifespan of a government has been little over a year — resulting in a development deficit. First, the state has not been able to spur economic growth through investment. Second, it has not been able to provide its citizens with basic physical and social infrastructure. And finally, as a result of political instability, the working environment has been plagued with bandhs, strikes and other variants of the same.
In the absence of necessary opportunities and conditions to work, youth remain disillusioned and are compelled to consider working overseas, often in very difficult circumstances. These workers now contribute a fifth of the country’s GDP, a number set to increase over the next few years, especially considering virtual stagnation in other segments of the economy. In these circumstances, one wonders if those in authority really have any incentive to stop the outflow of youth from the country, despite all their proclamations to that effect.
(This was a column printed in The Himalayan Times on 27 January, 2013)
