Speaking to remittances, it's quiet funny that some people are now suggesting that the FG should go after domiciliary accounts to look for scarce forex. One common point of failure of the last administration was using the stick approach in its economic policies. It's what created the disaster we have today. That people don't realise it's ineffectiveness is alarming.
Remittance flow hinges on the assumption that people are free to move to places where they can earn a higher premium on their skill. It's why people move from rural to urban areas. It is why people "japa". Now there is a quiet assault on this basic logic with the renewed vigour against (https://punchng.com/15000-nurses-left-nigeria-in-2023-registrar-nursing-council/) the migration of nurses.
Other professionals are taking notes and will adjust accordingly.
PS: Interesting to note in the Punch article that the agency that regulates nurses is not responsible for their welfare. But the same agency wants to keep nurses from pursuing their welfare by themselves wherever they please.
Yes, I've been following this story. Typical rent seeking behaviour by the agency asking nurses to pay some ridiculous amount of money to 'verify' their qualifications before they can be allowed to travel. They've found their money earner I guess
I had wanted to write a follow-up post, but this subject annoys me very deeply. Some update: Lee Crawfurd of CGD has an interesting blog (https://www.cgdev.org/blog/uk-recruitment-nigerian-nurses-can-be-win-win) on Nigerian nurses. The path to Japa has been a boon for nursing enrollment in Nigeria, and that is not surprising at all. But I feel people really underestimate the size of the payoff here and how it is a powerful incentive for emigration and enrollment. Here is the quote that struck me:
"Such migration brings huge benefits, not only to the UK health service but also to the migrants themselves. On average, an entry-level registered nurse in Nigeria can earn between £37 and £64 per month in a government-run hospital; in the UK, they can earn approximately £2,300 per month. If we assume that these workers will send 15 percent of their income, that equates to £345 per month supporting communities back in Nigeria, not to mention the impact of broader skill transfers."
Some proponents of migration control cite publicly-funded education as justification because they believe that training people to work overseas is a fiscal loss - but I do not buy such arguments when you factor in the size of remittance transfers - as a matter of fact I will argue it is a net-gain and an efficient way to spend public money. Moreover, the reason why people move is because domestic productivity and wages do not compensate for their skill, that is the source of any fiscal loss. If we do not fix that, keeping people from moving does not have any conceivable positive outcome.
We have "academics" in this country who collect salary and allowances but can't do any systematic study of event de jour to help government make decisions. This paper came out when the RCT vs aid vs economic growth issue was raging. But we have an entire academic class that's unaware of dev econ, and tacitly supported Buhari's ruinous policies.
There are other papers on the migration of Filipino workers to Brazil, the middle east etc. And there are thousands of Nigerians doing child care jobs in Egypt, Turkey etc. Just to buttress how how important the place premium is. But I don't hear the Nigerian government restricting those going for child care jobs in Egypt from traveling when both routes are responding to the same economic pressures.
Speaking to remittances, it's quiet funny that some people are now suggesting that the FG should go after domiciliary accounts to look for scarce forex. One common point of failure of the last administration was using the stick approach in its economic policies. It's what created the disaster we have today. That people don't realise it's ineffectiveness is alarming.
Incentives always work better than restrictions.
Remittance flow hinges on the assumption that people are free to move to places where they can earn a higher premium on their skill. It's why people move from rural to urban areas. It is why people "japa". Now there is a quiet assault on this basic logic with the renewed vigour against (https://punchng.com/15000-nurses-left-nigeria-in-2023-registrar-nursing-council/) the migration of nurses.
Other professionals are taking notes and will adjust accordingly.
PS: Interesting to note in the Punch article that the agency that regulates nurses is not responsible for their welfare. But the same agency wants to keep nurses from pursuing their welfare by themselves wherever they please.
Yes, I've been following this story. Typical rent seeking behaviour by the agency asking nurses to pay some ridiculous amount of money to 'verify' their qualifications before they can be allowed to travel. They've found their money earner I guess
I had wanted to write a follow-up post, but this subject annoys me very deeply. Some update: Lee Crawfurd of CGD has an interesting blog (https://www.cgdev.org/blog/uk-recruitment-nigerian-nurses-can-be-win-win) on Nigerian nurses. The path to Japa has been a boon for nursing enrollment in Nigeria, and that is not surprising at all. But I feel people really underestimate the size of the payoff here and how it is a powerful incentive for emigration and enrollment. Here is the quote that struck me:
"Such migration brings huge benefits, not only to the UK health service but also to the migrants themselves. On average, an entry-level registered nurse in Nigeria can earn between £37 and £64 per month in a government-run hospital; in the UK, they can earn approximately £2,300 per month. If we assume that these workers will send 15 percent of their income, that equates to £345 per month supporting communities back in Nigeria, not to mention the impact of broader skill transfers."
Some proponents of migration control cite publicly-funded education as justification because they believe that training people to work overseas is a fiscal loss - but I do not buy such arguments when you factor in the size of remittance transfers - as a matter of fact I will argue it is a net-gain and an efficient way to spend public money. Moreover, the reason why people move is because domestic productivity and wages do not compensate for their skill, that is the source of any fiscal loss. If we do not fix that, keeping people from moving does not have any conceivable positive outcome.
Write the post!
Here's the place premium paper by Lant Pritchett since 2016.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/least-you-can-do-global-poverty-better-best-you-can-do
We have "academics" in this country who collect salary and allowances but can't do any systematic study of event de jour to help government make decisions. This paper came out when the RCT vs aid vs economic growth issue was raging. But we have an entire academic class that's unaware of dev econ, and tacitly supported Buhari's ruinous policies.
One of the most sobering papers I've ever read
There are other papers on the migration of Filipino workers to Brazil, the middle east etc. And there are thousands of Nigerians doing child care jobs in Egypt, Turkey etc. Just to buttress how how important the place premium is. But I don't hear the Nigerian government restricting those going for child care jobs in Egypt from traveling when both routes are responding to the same economic pressures.