44th ARNOVA Annual Conference, Chicago IL, USA. With Daisha M. Merritt and Sabith Khan

1. Identification and
remittances: Does integration
hinder immigrant giving to the
country of origin?
44th ARNOVA Annual Conference
November 19-21, 2015
Chicago, IL, USA

2. Authors
 Arjen de Wit, VU University Amsterdam
 Daisha M. Merritt, Public Policy, UNC-Chapel Hill
 Sabith Khan, Research Director- ACCESS

3. Remittances
• Private transfers
• To friends or relatives in the country of origin
• Altruistic, exchange, strategic, insurance and/or
investment motives
o Lucas & Stark 1985; Rapoport & Docquier 2006
Philanthropy
• Voluntary action for the public good
o Payton (1988)

4. The Study
• Examines the correlates of private transfers to the home
country of immigrants in the Netherlands
• Contribute to the literature on immigrant giving by
continuing the discussion regarding the relationship
between time spent in the country of residence and
remittances

5. Decay Hypothesis
• Remittances giving decreases with each year
immigrants live in the country of residence
o Bettin & Lucchetti, 2012; Brown, 1997; Funkhouser, 1995; Lucas
& Stark, 1985; Menjivar et al., 1998; Pozo & Amuedo-Dorantes,
2006

6. Hypotheses
• Investigation of immigrant giving
o Immigrants transfer less money to their home country
the longer they stay in their new country
• H1: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the country of
residence
• H2: Remittances giving increases in the first years that immigrants stay in the
country of residence, after which it decreases
• H3: Remittances giving to family members decreases more slowly than
remittances giving to non-family members
• H4: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the country of
residence because immigrants lose contact with relatives and non-relatives in
their home country
• H5: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the country of
residence because immigrants are more actively participating in their country of
residence.
• H6: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the country of
residence because immigrants become less concerned with their country of
origin.

7. Data
• The Giving in the Netherlands Immigrant
Survey (GINIS) 2008
• Biannual cross-sectional survey
• Five non-western migrant groups: Turkish,
Moroccan, Surinamese, Antillean, Afghan
• N = 689
• Web based survey: CAWI and Face-to-
face interviews: CAPI

8. Immigration in the
Netherlands
 1960s: 'guest workers' from Southern
Europe and Northern Africa
 1970s: increase in migration from (former)
colonies in Caribbean
 2000s/2010s: migration from Eastern
European Union

9. Migrant groups in the
Netherlands

10. GivingPercent of People Giving
Amount (€) of Giving

11. Results
Percentage of people giving remittances for
different categories of years living in the
Netherlands (n=689)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
< 10 10 to 19 20 to 29 > 30
Years living in the Netherlands
Total
To family members
To non family members

12. Results
Average amount of remittances for different
categories of years living in the Netherlands
(n=283)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
< 10 10 to 19 20 to 29 > 30
Years living in the Netherlands
Total
To family members
To non family members

13. Results
• Regression analysis
o Incidence of remitting
o Offers test of the decay hypothesis
• Controls for other characteristics
• No association between years living in the Netherlands
and:
o the probability to remit
o the total amount remitted
o the amount remitted to family members
• People who migrated a longer time ago donate higher
amounts to non-family members
• There is little evidence for the decay hypothesis

14. Hypotheses
 H1: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the
country of residence
 H2: Remittances giving increases in the first years that immigrants
stay in the country of residence, after which it decreases
 H3: Remittances giving to family members decreases more slowly
than remittances giving to non-family members
 H4: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the
country of residence because immigrants lose contact with relatives
and non-relatives in their home country
X H5: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the
country of residence because immigrants are more actively
participating in their country of residence.
X H6: Remittances giving decreases as immigrants stay longer in the
country of residence because immigrants become less concerned
with their country of origin.

15. Conclusion
• People send money to their home country when they
know at least someone out there, while they send higher
amounts when they have less contact with friends in the
host country.
o This may reflect remittances giving as a way to participate in communities that
include family and friends overseas.
• Remittance giving does not decrease when Afghan,
Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean
immigrants stay longer in the Netherlands
o Contradicting earlier studies supporting decay hypothesis
• Brown, 1997; Bettin & Lucchetti, 2012; Pozo & Amuedo-Dorantes, 2006;
Lucas & Stark, 1985

16. Considerations
• Possible explanations for the findings:
o Ongoing conflicts in countries of origin
• Refugee crisis
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
o Based on the literature on identity and philanthropy, and
assimilation struggles, remittances could be seen as a way of
showing solidarity
• Schervish & Haven, 1997
o Social Capital and diaspora level association in the host country.
• Pim Valkenberg, Reviving Islam by Service, 2015

17. Thank You
 Arjen de Wit, VU University Amsterdam
 a.de.wit@vu.nl
 Daisha M. Merritt, Public Policy, UNC-Chapel Hill
 daisha@email.unc.edu
 Sabith Khan, Research Director- ACCESS
 khanpgg@vt.edu