“We need a space for the Diaspora to contribute to national, regional and international policy dialogue and action.”
If anything epitomised the goodwill that greeted the 1992 PPP/C government, it must have been the enthusiasm shown by the thousands of Guyanese who indicated that they wanted to return home, invest here or help the country in some other way. True, the liberal economic policy and democratic openings which took place under the presidency of Mr. Desmond Hoyte, had generated some interest but the real avalanche came after the victory of the PPP/C. That enough was not made of this opportunity is due to the fact that there was not a coherent diaspora policy and many of the (re-)migrants had unrealistic expectations of what was possible in a low wage economy with decrepit health, education and other facilities. The present regime has been in office for nearly two decades and has signaled that it will be, more-or-less, business as usual if it wins this year. Nonetheless, the coming election provides a good opportunity for all parties to engage and involve the diaspora in new and meaningful ways.
The Hoyte regime had began to employ some re-migrants as part of its public sector reform and apart from remittances, this kind of voluntary re-migration scheme was generally viewed as the most positive development role the diaspora could play: it would bring back accumulated amounts of financial, human and social capital into 
developing countries. Of course, this approach was based on the assumption that “a migrant has spent sufficient time abroad to acquire skills and resources, and that he or she is capable and willing to dedicate (part of) this capital to new activities in the country of origin. These countries of origin can facilitate a successful reintegration, … by creating the right social, economic and institutional environment for the returning migrants”. (See Hein de Haas “Engaging Diasporas:” International Migration Institute, 2006, for a good discourse.)
Most of us view the contribution (re-)migration makes to development primarily in terms of remittances and this is not surprising. According to the 2011 World Bank Migration and Remittances Fact Book, at the end of 2010 worldwide remittances, 75% of which went to developing countries, were estimated to be US$440b, up from US$416b in 2009. Guyana is said to have received some US$266m or 24% of its GDP in 2009. This is not an insignificant contribution to our national wellbeing, but until relatively recently, the relationship between migration and development was not considered very important.
The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) pioneered research that drew international attention to the size of remittances and the need for proper financial institutions to reduce the transaction cost of remitting money. But it was the 2003 World Bank publication “Workers remittances: an important and stable source of external development finance” by Dilip Ratha that raised global awareness of the developmental potential of migration and sent a virtual shockwave through the development community. It stressed the relative importance of workers’ remittances as a source of development finance in developing countries and discussed measures that industrial and developing countries could take to increase remittances. It conc1uded that remittance flows are the second largest source, behind foreign direct investment, of external funding for developing countries and that remittances are often invested by the recipients, particularly in countries with sound economic policies. It also observed that the transaction costs of fund transfers often exceed 20%, and that reducing them by even 5% could generate an annual saving of US$3.5b for the workers sending money home.
Reports such as these gave rise to the awareness of a new and more extensive role for the diaspora. For example, instead of crafting its policies mainly in terms of migration control and outmigration, by 2005 the European Commission proposed a series of more concrete measures that focused on specific topics associated with South-North migration, and in particular on possible actions that could be carried out at the EC level, in partnership with developing countries of origin. The EC proposals merit some attention, because it is the first time that an intergovernmental body had proposed such a comprehensive set of measures to address migration and development and it also gives us an idea of the kinds of issues one needs to consider when developing policies in this area.
The importance of facilitating remittances was recognised and the EC identified two main areas for policy action: fostering cheaper, faster and more secure ways to send remittances and enhancing the development impact of remittances in recipient countries, by improving the incentive and informational infrastructure to stimulate productive investments. Support to developing countries by helping them to set up diaspora databases and encouraging its member states to identify and engage diaspora organisations, itself encouraging such organisations involved in the development of countries of origin and introducing youth exchange schemes that focus on the migrant communities were also addressed. So were encouraging circular migration and brain circulation by stimulating the potential of temporary migration and facilitating return or virtual return migration through support for e-learning schemes, networking between foreign researchers, etc., and finally the EC sought to mitigate the adverse effects of the brain drain by again encouraging circular migration and brain circulation, disciplining recruitment by limiting it and through mechanisms such as codes of practice, by fostering institutional partnerships between institutions; universities, hospitals, etc and encouraging development cooperation as a source of employment opportunities for skilled professionals in developing countries. (Ibid)
Today diaspora policy has come of age and in the Caribbean, Jamaica is perhaps the country most in tuned with its diaspora. The need for comprehensive policies to address the requirements and possibilities of the diaspora community is also well recognised. For example, Dominica has a policy that claims to be “a transparent and unambiguous statement of Government’s Policy with regard to non-resident Dominicans” and deals with citizenship rights and obligations; financial and economic incentives and regulations; investment opportunities; skills transfer, the so-called brain gain and information exchange with the diaspora; trade promotion; cultural exchanges and the export of cultural products, and giving recognition for outstanding service.
Apart from the diaspora’s remittances, the fact that in this election season every political party that has the capacity to do so has beaten a path to its door is also a clear indication of how important it is to Guyana. I therefore wonder why the possibility of diaspora voting and otherwise participating in our elections process is so unwelcome to some, even if one must recognise that given our history with overseas voting and the general closeness of national elections, implementing such changes may be at present unwise. That said, the Action Plan of the Alliance for Change does contain a more progressive outlook for a structured approach to diaspora involvement, which provides a space for it to contribute to Guyana’s national, regional and international policy dialogue and action.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
