Sub-Saharan Africa received almost $12 billion in remittances in 2007, and that was only the official number. With "informal" flows added the total amount can easily be double that number. Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Senegal, Uganda and South Africa received the highest volume of remittances, while in smaller countries such as Lesotho remittances represent up to a quarter of GDP.
Remittance costs are significantly higher for Africa compared to other regions; costs can go up to almost 25% of the amount remitted. Remittances between African countries (from South Africa, for example) are especially expensive. Reducing these costs will mean substantial extra transfers, and this will be a focus of the World Bank’s medium term agenda on the African financial sector. The immediate concern is, however, stability of flows: the recent international credit crisis will lead to a slowdown in remittances. Remittances have generally been counter-cyclical in the past, as they tend to increase when the receiving country experiences adverse events.
But a recession in sending countries could hurt the capacity of migrants to send money home. It is still too early to determine if the latter factor will dominate and cause a decline in the total amount remitted, although there are some disturbing signs . High-frequency data on remittances for African countries are scarce, but available data show that remittances from the US seem to have slowed down in recent months; remittances from other sending countries, however, have not yet been affected.
Since some readers of this blog are senders of remittances, and others recipients, it would be helpful to hear how you see remittances changing in the current situation.