Migration and Poverty in Bangladesh: Ironies and Paradoxes
Md. Mizanur Rahman
National University of Singapore
himumitu@hotmail.com

INTRODUCTION
Migration has been an important demographic process in Bangladesh as rural pauperization and landlessness force people to leave rural areas in search of better
opportunities (Baluja, 2003; Chaudhury, 1979; Afsar, 2000; Faraizi, 1993). The long queue of applicants for overseas employment and the proliferation of recruitment
agencies in Bangladesh reflect the growing significance of labor migration and the apparent internationalization of labor markets. Labor migration is often associated with
poverty. Traditionally, labor migrants are both pushed by the lack of opportunities in the home country and pulled by the hope of economic gain in the destination country.
Poverty is seen as a motivating factor for migration and labor migration is often seen as a cause of poverty. As a result, international labor migration is believed to be
contributing to poverty reduction, because the remittances sent back by migrants are supposed to improve the economies of migrant families.
However, in recent years several changes have taken place in the context of Asian labor migration (Arnold and Nasra, 1986; Abella, 2000; Abdullah, 1997). It seems that
‘the age of the great honey pots’ is over, especially for unskilled migrant workers in Asia. If we look at the last two decades, we will see that the benefits of migration for the unskilled migrants have dried up considerably. For example, in 1975, an unskilled worker from Bangladesh neither had to pay any service charge, nor for their air ticket for migration to the Middle East. For a 40 hour a week job, his salary was US$ 300-400.
Now for a similar type of work, a worker gets a salary of US$ 80-1001 per month working 60 hours a week (see Siddiqui, 2001). All these recent changes in Asia have left
migrant workers exposed to economic misery. Now more migrants and their families are worried about the economic outcome of labor migration than ever before.

1 Recently, a migrant worker needs to spend around US $ 2,000 to 2,500 for migration to Middle East for a two-year contract. From the above data, we can easily conclude that a migrant worker hardly gets back even their financial cost of migration by working in Middle East for two years.

The existing literature on migration and poverty does not report this trend in temporary labor migration in Asia (Dang, 2003; KC, 2003; Kothari, 2002; Skeldon, 1997, 2002; de Hann, 1999, 2002; Russell, 1992; Kannan and Hari, 2002;
Papademetriou and Martin, 1991; Oucho, 2002; Ellerman, 2003; Peberdy, 2003;
Pritchard, 2001). Recently, Ronald Skeldon (2002), a leading scholar of migrationpoverty
debate, identifies three major types of interrelationships between migration and poverty: (i) poverty as a root cause of migration; (ii) migration as the result of poverty;
and (iii) migration as a cause of poverty. To capture the recent trend in labor migration, this paper introduces another type of relationships between migration and poverty, that
is, ‘poverty as a result of migration’. Focusing on Bangladeshi temporary labor migrants in Singapore, the data for this microanalysis comes from the migrant workers’ surveys in
Singapore and returnees’ surveys in two selected villages, Gurail and Hoglakandi, in Bangladesh. For the convenience of calculation, I particularly examine the financial cost
and benefit of labor migration.

MIGRANT WORKERS SURVEYS IN SINGAPORE
A. Residence Survey
There are usually two types of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Singapore: migrants of first contract period (or new migrants) and migrants of second contract period. After the end of first contract period, some migrants may get a chance to renew the contract depending on the availability of work for another contract (usually for one or two years).
The migrants, who do not get renewal of contract, are bound to leave the country immediately after the cancellation of work permit. As the financial benefit of migration
may differ based on the number of contract periods (first contract or consecutive second contract), I interviewed migrants of both contract periods. Major finding reveals that 61 percent of migrants spent between Taka 180,000 and 250,000 for migration (SG$ 1= 33Taka). The financial cost of migration is huge in the context of Bangladesh and it is, in most of the cases, beyond the capacity of the rural families. As a result, they had to raise funds for migration from different sources.
On average, 34.03 and 20.19 percents of financial cost for a migrant came from relatives in Bangladesh and abroad respectively. The role of moneylenders is also noteworthy. On average a migrant received 10.37 percent of financial cost of migration from money-lenders. On average 64.8 percent of financial cost of migration came from ‘social capital’ of family. Now I turn to assess the financial benefits of migration. Sixty seven percent of migrants did not get back their financial cost of migration when they were interviewed. However, 64 percent hope to get their financial cost of migration by the end of the contract period. Thirty five percent of migrants expected to remit less than the investment cost of migration while 20 percent hoped to remit equal to their investment cost of migration during their contract period. Thus, the data informs that 55 percent of the migrants expected to remit only equal to the investment cost of migration or less than that. In terms of financial benefit, migrants of second contract were largely successful in remitting their investment cost of migration. Ninety four percent of migrants remitted their investment cost when they were interviewed.

B. Airport Survey
As Airport survey was also conducted among the migrants of first contract and of second contract separately, the Airport survey reveals that forty three percent of migrants paid between 180,000 and 250,000 Taka. The data on airport survey reveals that 73.12 percent of migrants of first contract remitted only investment cost of migration or less than that. Therefore, it can be concluded that, overall, migrants of first contract period had a little chance to benefit from overseas migration. Ninety three percent of the migrants of second contract were skilled workers. Sixty percent of them paid between 180,000 and 220,000 Taka. Ninety eight percent of migrants remitted their investment cost of migration. Sixty percent of migrants remitted up to triple of their investment cost of migration. However, we have seen in the residence survey that 64 percent of migrants of second contract expected to remit up to triple of their investment costs of migration. Overall, migrants of second contract period had higher possibility of gaining from Singapore migration.

RETURNEES’ SURVEYS IN BANGLADESH
For the convenience of calculation, the cost of migration for returnees is assumed 200,000 Taka. Data from Gurail shows that 76 percent of returnees’ families borrowed
money from the traditional moneylenders for financing the cost of migration. The interest rates of this borrowed money were very high, which usually ranged between 5
and 10 percent per month (60 to 120 percent per year). Amongst the returnees of Hoglakandi, 72 percent borrowed money from traditional moneylenders. Concerning the
extent of borrowing and other alternatives used to raise the necessary funds, on average, 51.38 percent of the total cost of migration came from traditional moneylenders and 29.22 percent from returnees’ personal savings, family savings, and loan from relatives and in some cases, selling livestock or gold ornaments. Concerning the financial benefits of migrants' families in Gurail, data divulge a sad picture. For example, 80 percent of returnee families did not get their investment back. In the case of Hoglakandi, the study found that 52 percent of returnees remitted less than Taka 220,000.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, I offered a financial cost-benefit analysis of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Singapore. Migration to Singapore is a costly venture. Prospective migrants paid a
huge amount of cash to migrate. The economic cost of migration involved a hidden cost as well. The hidden cost often damaged the economic base of the migrant families. The
data reveals that Bangladeshi labor migration to Singapore was not economically beneficial for a substantial number of migrants and their families2. It impoverished a
large section of migrant families. I identified one of the important reasons behind this economic misery is the excessive financial cost of migration. I think some recruiting
agents and brokers are responsible for this exorbitant financial cost of migration.
Prospective migrants in Bangladesh pay exorbitant fees for voluntary economic migration, which is not common in other sending countries in the region. For example, a
Thai migrant worker usually pays around SG$ 2,000 for a two-year contract in Singapore while, for the same contract period, a Bangladeshi migrant worker pays
around SG $ 7,000. If we look at other destination countries in East and Southeast Asia or the Middle East, we will find similar cases, where a prospective Bangladeshi migrant
worker pays higher fees3. Prospective migrants are paying the fees in Bangladesh.
Therefore, the solution to the problem must be found in Bangladesh.
Although the emphasis of development policies in Bangladesh is now on poverty alleviation, one needs to ask a question on how to make migration work for the poor. In
considering the role of migration in poverty eradication, the critical concern is how to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of migration for migrants and their
families. Bangladesh sees labor migration as a short-cut to development because of its role in unemployment relief, balance of payments relief, and capital formation at
national level. Thus, there is a tendency to overlook the micro-effects of labor migration, which I consider irrational because what may prove to be advantageous at the national level may prove to be disadvantageous at household level. It is not just how the government or the recruiting agents may benefit from labor migration but how the whole process of migration can benefit migrants and their families and reduce poverty. I suggest that the main issue should be to make migration work for the people. In doing so, I urge the relevant government body in Bangladesh to streamline the labor export policy with a view to safeguard the migrant workers and their families from economic misery in home and abroad.
2 I strongly believe that the experience of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Singapore with regard to the economic misery is not a unique case. Given the higher financial cost of migration I think that a large number of Bangladeshi migrant workers in other parts of Asia also experience the similar economic misery (e.g. Blanchet, 2002; Rudnick, 1996; Ishida and Hassan, 2000).
3 For example, a prospective migrant from Bangladeshi pays fees roughly US $ 6,000-8,000 for Korea, US$ 2,000-3000 for Malaysia, and US$ 2000-2,500 for the Middle East. However, a prospective migrant from the Philippine pays fees roughly US $ 2,500 for Korea and US$ 1,500 for Malaysia and the Middle-East.