Migrants’ Remittances from France Findings of a survey on migrants’ financial needs and remittance behavior in Montreuil GREENBACK 2.0 MONTREUIL REPORT JUNE 2015  i Migrants’ Remittances from France Findings of a survey on migrants’ financial needs and remittance behavior in Montreuil greenback 2.0 Montreuil Report June 2015  iii Contents Foreword.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ExEcutive Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Migration and Remittances: the context of the survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 World outlook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 France.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Greenback 2.0 Survey: research objectives and sampling methodology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Research objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Choice of migrant communities and eligibility criteria.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Sample methodology and approach strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Empirical findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The demographic and economic profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Savings and financial inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Remittances behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Migrants’ use of Information & Communication Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Conclusions and areas for future actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Annex—A methodological note on the survey design and the fieldwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36  v Foreword In recent years, global remittance flows to developing countries have received increased attention from policymakers and the international community. Remittance flows have grown steadily over the years: today, they represent about 1 percent of the World GDP and are the second largest source of external funding for the developing world. But more importantly, more than 700 million people depend on remittance flows, and they still pay an excessive price for sending or receiving their money, as the average global cost for sending remittances stands at 7.7 percent. The efforts of the international community and the adoption by the G8 and G20 of the “5x5 objective”—reducing of the average cost of remittances by five percentage points in five years—have paid-off, as remittance prices have decreased by 2.3 percentage points over the last 5 years, but more can be achieved. Recently in Brisbane, the G20 have renewed their commitment towards the cost reduction objective. Reducing the costs of remittances requires to take action on many fronts, but also to be innovative, and that is precisely what Project Greenback 2.0 is doing: being innovative by promoting change and increasing efficiency in the market inspired by the real needs of the ultimate beneficiaries of international money transfers, the migrants and their families. Project Greenback 2.0 is also testing and proving at a local level the efficiency of the best practices promoted by the World Bank for the achievement of the 5x5 objec- tive, by working with the migrants and their families. Turin, Italy has been the first home of Greenback 2.0, the first Remittances Champion City, and its first success story. The ideas developed in Turin included a whole range of activities which helped migrants make better choices for sending their money and meet- ing the needs of their families back home: • financial education activities focused on remittance services; • monitoring of the remittances market; • supporting projects of migrant associations in order to promote information, aware- ness, education, and implementation of best practices on remittance behavior; • facilitating and keeping an active dialogue between migrant citizens and market play- ers, encouraging them to develop new services or new approaches that are better suited to migrants’ needs. Montreuil, France, has been inspired by the example of Turin and the Greenback’s inno- vative approach. The first step involved carrying out a survey to collect data on the most representative migrant communities and the largest in terms of remittances sent to the country of origin. This survey, which was commissioned to a team (DIAL) from the French Research Institute for Development (Institut de Recherche pour le Dével- oppement) is the focus of this report. The research findings are the starting point for Project Greenback 2.0 activities aimed at promoting transparency and information in the market for remittances. The DIAL team included Flore Gubert (Deputy Director, DIAL), vi Foreword Jean-Noël Senne (Research Fellow, DIAL), Sandrine Mesplé-Somps (Research Officer, IRD), and Lisa Chauvet (Research Officer, IRD). In Montreuil, the project is led by Ceu Pereira (Senior Payment System Specialist, The World Bank) and supported by field coordinator Elodie Vitalis (Remittances Analyst, The World Bank). Marco Nicoli (Financial Sector Specialist, The World Bank) acts as the global coordinator for Project Greenback 2.0. I would like to express our gratitude to all of the participating communities, groups, and associations, the City of Montreuil, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other local authorities and, most importantly, the interviewed migrants who gave us their time and their attention. Massimo Cirasino Practice Manager for Financial Infrastructure and Access Finance and Markets The World Bank List of Tables and Figures vii List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Composition of Montreuil’s population by area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Table 2: Migration and remittances to Algeria, Mali, and Côte d’Ivoire (1990–2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 3: Composition of the foreign-born population in Montreuil, by country of origin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 4: Sample composition by country of origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 5: Main characteristics of the migrants’ sample, by country of origin. . . . . 9 Table 6: Documents at the time of first entry in France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 7: Legal status of interviewees in 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 8: Average number of relatives in France or elsewhere, by country of origin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 9: Job distribution by type of contract for those who arrived in France before and after 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 10: Distribution by type of occupation, by gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 11: Individual income (mean and standard error). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 12: Savings behavior of migrants, and characteristics of the migrants who saved money.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 13: Number of recipients per migrant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 14: Link with the remittance recipients (as a percentage of all transactions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 15: Average amount sent per year, by recipient.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 16: Frequency of remittances by recipient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 17: Mean amount sent per transaction (in euros). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 18: Type of channel used (percentage). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 19: How did the transaction take place (for those who used hand-carried cash)?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 20: Main advantage of channels used (all migrants) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 21: Time required for the money to be available at destination (all migrants) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 22: Main disadvantages of channels used (all migrants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 23: Average cost per transaction as a percentage of the amount sent, by channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 24: Cost composition (percentage, per channel). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 25: Evolution of remittance amounts since arrival, by country of origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 26: Use of New Information and Communication Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 27: Use of mobile phone.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 28: Frequency of phone calls with family living in the country of origin and use email or Skype to communicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 viii GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Figure 1: Distribution by number of relatives residing in the country of origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 2: Distribution by number of children left in the country of origin (percentage of migrants whith children). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 3: Average hours worked per week (percentage). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 4: Sector of occupation (in percentage, full sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 5: Household income by country of origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 6: Bank account ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 7: Bank account ownership, before and after 2008.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 8: Type of bank account, before and after 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 9: Reasons for not having a bank account in France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 10: Services and products used by migrants (percentage).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 11: Type of cards held, all migrants (percent). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 12: Type of cards held, by target group (percent). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 13: Distribution of loan by size (in percentage of the 60 migrants who declare having a loan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 14: To whom would you ask for a loan if you needed one?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 15: Use of remitted funds (percent). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 16: Names of bank and money transfer operators and frequency. . . . . . . . 24 Figure 17: Where (or how) did the transaction take place?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 18: Comparison of cost between data sources (Greenback 2.0 survey vs. RPW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 19: Problems with the channel used?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 20: How did you choose your main remittances channel?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 21: Change in the remittances channel?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 22: Reasons for an increase or decrease in remittances amounts. . . . . . . . 29 Figure 23: Reverse remittances, by country of origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 24: Where and using which device do migrants access internet? (as a percentage of the number of migrants who access internet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31  ix Executive Summary P roject Greenback 2.0—Remittances Champion Cities consists in identifying cities where a series of measures are implemented to foster the development of a sound remittance market. The objective of the Project is the promotion of transparency and competition in the market for remittances and, ultimately, the reduction of prices for remittance services. Montreuil, France is the second Remittances Champion City after Turin, Italy. This report provides the results of a survey conducted by DIAL, a team of the French Institute of Research on Development (“Institut de la Recherche pour le Developpe- ment”) on a sample of migrants living in Montreuil and follows the same methodology as the report “Migrants’ remittances from Italy, international remittances and access to financial services for migrants in Turin, Italy,” undertaken in the framework of Project Greenback 2.0 in Turin. The survey constitutes the “baseline scenario” informing actions to be developed in Montreuil. Specifically, it investigates the socio-economic character- istics of migrants, as well as their financial inclusion and remittance behavior. Particular attention has been given to the channels used to transfer money abroad. The three migrant groups selected for the survey—Algerians, Ivorians, and Malians— reflect their important share in the foreign-born population in Montreuil as well as contrasted patterns of migration. While Algerian migrants represent the largest group, Malians stood as a natural choice as Montreuil is well known for being one of the most popular destination cities for this nationality. With regard to Ivorian migrants, the deter- minant factor was their more recent history of migration to France, as this was consid- ered to potentially lead to contrasted remittance patterns. The survey highlights differences between the three communities based on sociologi- cal factors—such as size of family, length of stay in France, type of education—as well as economic integration factors, such as occupation type, legal status, etc. Algerians tend to be more educated, have better jobs and enjoy a slightly higher level of income than migrants in the other groups; their length of stay in France is also longer in average. The same goes for Malians with regard to length of stay, but their income is slightly lower and the size of their families larger, in average, as compared with the other groups. Ivo- rians are the group with shortest length of stay in France and hence tend to be slightly less integrated than the two other groups. The survey confirmed that the three surveyed foreign-born groups are fairly well- integrated financially, with over 85% of individuals having one or more bank accounts. However, most migrants do not use their bank accounts to send money back home, which is consistent with the results of the Greenback 2.0 Turin Survey. The three groups also show different remittance behavior. Malian migrants remit more, on average, than the two other communities, while Ivorians remit less. This suggests that remittances are not linearly correlated with income, as Algerian migrants in Montreuil are, on average, wealthier than Malian and Ivorian migrants, but remit less, on average, than Malian migrants. x GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 The duration of stay in France does not seem to alter the intensity of the links migrants have with those left behind. Ivorians and Malians remit relatively small amounts of funds on a very regular basis (generally every month), whereas Algerians remit higher amounts of funds but much less frequently (two or three times a year). These contrasted patterns reflect different family structures—Malian and Ivorian migrants have much larger fami- lies in their origin country—but also a different use of remittances—Malian and Ivorian migrants contribute to the current expenses of those left behind, while remittances from Algerian migrants are more often used to buy durable goods or to invest. Remittance channels are also radically different among those three communities. Alge- rian and Malian migrants overwhelmingly rely on hand-carried cash transfers, while a large majority of Ivorian migrants use money transfer operators (MTOs). Several fac- tors may explain this pattern. Communities with a long-lasting history of migration to France rely on strong migrant networks and prefer using friends or other intermediar- ies to carry cash back home. In the case of Algeria, the presence of an informal market for foreign-exchange currency may also affect remittance behaviors. The survey shows that migrants in general have distorted perceptions about the real transaction costs and overall service conditions, especially as they generally do not consider the exchange rate factor as a cost. Introduction W ith USD 435 billion officially recorded remittance flows to developing countries in 2014, remittances are a critical source of national best practices and promoting an active dialogue between migrant citizens and market players. Finally, the project is in constant communication and families’ income. However, high transaction with the relevant public authorities to report the costs and other inefficiencies in the process findings of the work in the field and inspire pos- often adversely impact migrant workers and sible reforms. their families. The G8 and G20 have therefore set among their objectives the reduction of the In 2014, the City of Montreuil became the second average cost of remittances from 10 to 5 percent Champion City, after Turin in 2013. According to in 5 years (5x5 objective) by 2014. More recently, the latest population census, as of 2010, 26 per- in Brisbane, the G20 have renewed their com- cent of Montreuil’s inhabitants were born abroad mitment towards the cost reduction objective, and 19 percent did not have French nationality. as the global average cost still stands at nearly These shares vary from one location to another, 8 percent. Achieving the objective would save ranging from 15 percent in the city center to 23 USD 16 million per year: these funds would simply percent in the Northern part of the municipality remain with migrants and their families and could (see Map 1 and Table 1). As part of the project, significantly contribute to improving the living DIAL was tasked to conduct a survey among conditions of the migrants themselves as well as three migrant communities residing in Montreuil in reducing poverty in their countries of origin. order to explore both their level of financial inclu- sion and their remittance behavior. Malians, Ivori- Project Greenback 2.0 consists in identifying ans, and Algerians were the three chosen groups. Remittances Champion Cities, where a series of measures are implemented to foster the develop- This report presents the main results of the sur- ment of a sound remittance market. The objective vey. It starts with an overview of migration from of the project is the promotion of transparency and remittances to the selected countries. It then and competition in the market for remittances presents the research objectives and describes and, ultimately, the reduction of prices for remit- both the survey design and sampling methodol- tance services. Some of the key challenges in ogy as well as the challenges posed by the field effective remittance services are users’ access work.1 It is followed by a presentation of the main to information and healthy competition amongst findings of the survey, based on a total sample remittance providers at the sending as well as the of 428 migrants. After a brief description of the receiving end. socio-demographic characteristics of the sur- veyed migrants, the discussion focuses on their Activities carried out by the project cover mul- financial inclusion and their remittance behavior. tiple fields, following a comprehensive approach. The last part of the report provides conclud- It is designed to work at the local level, targeting ing remarks on the policy options for private both sides of the remittances market: supply and and public actions to promote the objectives of demand. On the one hand, the project promotes Greenback 2.0. financial education and awareness campaigns locally; on the other, it interacts with remittance 1 A more comprehensive description of the methodology is provided in service providers, encouraging demand-driven the Annex.  1 2 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Map 1: Montreuil by areas Table 1: Composition of Montreuil’s population by area Non-French Citizens Population % Area* 1 (Bas Montreuil-République/Etienne Marcel-Chanzy/Bobillot) 23,923 21 Area 2 (La Noue-Clos français/Villiers Barbusse) 12,735 15 Area 3 (Solidarité - Carnot/Centre ville/Jean Moulin-Beaumonts) 21,864 15 Area 4 (Ramenas-Léo Lagrange/Branly-Boissière) 15,992 23 Area 5 (Bel Air-Grands Pêchers-Renan / Signac-Murs à Pêches) 17,175 23 Area 6 (Ruffins Théophile-Sueur/Montreau-le Morillon) 11,503 17 Total 103,192 19 Source: City of Montreuil. Figures computed using the 2010 population census. *Secteur . 1 Migration and Remittances: the context of the survey World outlook Flows to developing countries reached an esti- mated USD 435 billion in 2014—approximately Measuring international migration and remittances equal to three fourths of total remittance flows is not an easy task, especially due to the semantic worldwide and 1 percent of the world GDP. Remit- debate about the exact definition of a migrant tances are the second largest source of external and the multiplicity of existing criteria (citizenship, funding for developing countries, behind foreign place of birth, country of residence, length of stay direct investments (USD 703 billion in 2012) and etc.), poor records on in-kind remittances and/or are more than three times larger than official remittances sent through unregulated channels, development assistance (USD 134,8 billion in and a lack of reliable data at the country level. 2013). Unlike other monetary flows, remittances Yet, most international databases on worldwide remained quite stable after the 2008 crisis. They migrant stocks have agreed to define a migrant as registered a slight decrease of 4 percent in 2009 an individual aged 15 and over, living in a country but have started to grow again at an annual rate where he/she was not born and/or from which of 7 percent since then.4 he/she is not a national. As for remittances data, only money transfers that are channeled through Migration and remittances flows from/to the regulated entities are generally recorded (mostly countries of origin of the three groups of migrants through banks, post offices, and money transfer considered in the survey (Algeria, Mali, and Côte operators). d’Ivoire) show quite similar patterns (Table 2). Approximately 1.5 million Algerian and 1 mil- Using this definition of a migrant, according to lion Malian and Ivorian migrants were recorded the United Nations, the total world stock of inter- worldwide in 2011, which represents 5.5 percent, national migrants was estimated at 232 million 6 percent, and 5 percent of the population in the in 2013.2 This number increased by 20 percent country of origin, respectively. Since 1990, the over the last decade and has almost multiplied total international migrant stock for Algeria, Mali by three since 1960, growing at a significant and Côte d’Ivoire has increased dramatically, by pace during the 1980s and the 1990s. The United 23 percent and 29 percent for Algeria and Mali, Nations and OECD jointly estimated that nowa- respectively, while it has tripled for Côte d’Ivoire days International migrants account for 3.2 per- during the same time period, a trend which cent of the world population, versus less than appears to be driven by the more recent emigra- 2 percent in 1960.3 The second half of the 20th tion episodes of Ivorian nationals. At the same century witnessed a concomitant boom in migrant time, Algerian migrants are those who send back remittances to the countries of origin. the highest amounts to their country of origin, with an estimated USD 2.1 billion in 2014 that According to the World Bank, global remittance accounts for 1 percent of the country’s GDP. While flows were approximately USD 582 billion in 2014. remittance flows to Mali and Côte d’Ivoire are significantly lower (respectively, USD 815 million 2 http://esa.un.org/unmigration/documents/worldmigration/2013/ Chapter1.pdf 3 Source: Trends in International Migrant Stock, United Nations database, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2012). Unless specified, migrant 4 Source: Bilateral Remittances Database, World Bank (2013). Unless figures presented in this section are taken from this source. These figures specified, remittance figures presented in this section are taken from this include refugees but exclude irregular and internal migrants. source.  3 4 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 2: Migration and remittances to Algeria, Mali, and Côte d’Ivoire (1990–2010) Algeria Mali Côte d’Ivoire 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Migrants (thousand) 913 1,028 1,119 703 828 904 382 685 1,142 … Growth rate (%) – +12,6 +8,9 – +17,8 +9,2 – +79,3 +66,7 … in France (thousand) 789 840 894 49 52 56 41 44 46 Remittances (USD million) 352 790 2,044 107 73 473 44 119 373 … Growth rate (%) – +124,4 +158,7 –31,8 +557,9 +170,5 +213,4 … From France (USD million) – – 1 384 – – 77 – – 47 Source: United Nations (2012) and World Bank (2013). and USD 380 million in 2014), they account for a the 1990–2010 period (Table 2), and France still larger share of these countries’ GDP (respectively is by far the first destination country for Algerian 7.2 percent and 1.2 percent the same year). In all migrants in the world in terms of stock: 894,000 three countries, remittance flows have consider- were recorded in France in 2010, i.e. 80 percent ably increased over the last two decades: they of the total world stock.5 At the time, Algerian were multiplied by six for Algeria, more than four people were the most numerous migrant group in for Mali and more than eight for Côte d’Ivoire. the country; as a consequence, 68 percent (USD 1.4 billion) remittances flows to Algeria originated France from France. As the last census in France dates back to 2010, The picture is quite different for Mali and Côte the most recent migration data date back to that d’Ivoire, since the bulk of migration from these year. In 2010, France hosted an estimated 6.7 mil- countries takes place within the Sub-Saharan lion international migrants, mostly coming from region. More than 90 percent of Malian and Ivo- other European countries (Portugal, Italy, and rian migrants emigrated to another developing Spain) and former colonies in North-Africa (Alge- country in 2010, mostly to West Africa. However, ria, Morocco, and Tunisia), South-East Asia (Viet- the former colonial power remains the first des- nam, Cambodia, and Lao PDR), and Sub-Saharan tination country in the developed world: respec- Africa (Senegal, Mali, and the Democratic Repub- tively 67 percent Malian (56,000) and 51 percent lic of Congo). The total number of immigrants in Ivorian (46,000) migrants living in a developed France increased by approximately 13 percent country were recorded in France in 2010.6 More- between 1990 and 2010, when remittance out- over, Malian migrants are the second most repre- flows from France were estimated at USD 14.4 bil- sented Sub-Saharan nationality in France, behind lion. This number slightly decreased by 4 percent Senegalese. Ivorian migrants stand fourth, after after the 2008 crisis, but reached again their the Congolese. In parallel, remittances flows from pre-crisis level in 2010 and continued to steadily France in 2010 reached an estimated USD 77 mil- increase in the following years. lion to Mali and USD 47 million to Côte d’Ivoire, respectively 16 and 13 percent of the total flows to The geography of migration to France results these countries, but nearly 80 and 60 percent of from a long history that dates back to the colo- the flows originating from a developed country. nial era, but also from recent changes due to fluctuating economic conditions and the gradual implementation of restrictive migration policies 5 The second and third destination countries of Algerian migrants are in a country that has a long-standing tradition Canada and Italy. of being receptive to immigration. Indeed, the 6 The top-3 destination countries of Malian and Ivorian migrants in the world are respectively Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Burkina Faso and Burkina number of migrants in France from the three Faso, Ghana and Nigeria. The second destination country in the developed countries under study remained rather stable over world is Spain for Malian migrants and the United States for Ivorians. 2 The Greenback 2.0 Survey: research objectives and sampling methodology Research objectives Choice of migrant communities The main objective of the Greenback 2.0 survey is and eligibility criteria to investigate the banking and remittance send- Given the composition of the foreign-born popu- ing behavior of migrants residing in the City of lation in Montreuil (Table 3), migrants from Alge- Montreuil with a view to identifying the main con- ria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mali, Senegal, and Côte straints or difficulties migrants encounter when d’Ivoire were all potential candidates for being they want to send money back home, and to included in the survey. In order to reflect con- design well-adapted products or services to bet- trasted patterns with regard to history and modes ter serve migrants and their families. The collec- of migration to France, socioeconomic condi- tion of specific information on the socioeconomic tions and remittance behavior, the following three characteristics of the migrants (such as age, sex, groups were selected: individuals of Algerian date of birth, migration experience, date of arrival origin within the North African community and in France, marital status, household composition, individuals of Malian and Ivorian origins within the level of education, type of occupation, type of West African community. accommodation, income, etc.) helps to understand those behaviors and is based on the methodol- Within the North-African population, prefer- ogy elaborated by the World Bank in collaboration ence was given to individuals of Algerian origin with FIERI (Forum of International and European because they represent the largest group within Research on Immigration) for the Greenback 2.0 Montreuil’s foreign-born population. Additionally, Turin Survey.7 The questionnaire used in the survey the Algerian community is composed of both old is composed of the following main modules: and young migrants whose contrasted remittance behaviors (in terms of amount and channels used) • Socio-demographic and socio-economic char- are worth investigating. Lastly, the Algerians’ acteristics of the sample migrants (age, sex, remittance behavior has been comparatively less date of birth, migration experience, date of studied than Moroccans or Tunisians. arrival in France, marital status, household composition, level of education, type of occu- Within the West-African communities, Malian pation, type of accommodation, income, etc.); migrants appeared as a natural choice for being • Access to and use of banking services (number covered by the study. With a large share of its of bank accounts, number and type of credit population being Malian or of Malian descent, cards possessed, savings, borrowings, etc.); Montreuil is sometimes referred to as “Bamako- sur-Seine.” Malian migrants in Montreuil are known • Remittance sending behavior (frequency and to keep strong ties to their country of origin, amount sent, channels used, number and iden- which translates into large remittance flows to tity of recipients, dedicated use, etc.); and, Mali, notably to the Western part of the country • Access to and use of IT facilities and services. (the Yelimané and Kayes districts, in the Kayes region) from which most Malian migrants in 7 Migrants’ remittances from Italy—International remittances and access Montreuil come from. Moreover, it is well known to financial services for migrants in Turin, Italy, a Greenback 2.0 report. that they send remittances both to their family https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/migrants_ remittances_italy.pdf  5 6 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 3: Composition of the foreign-born population in Montreuil, by country of origin 0–15 15–24 25–54 55+ All % Portugal 47 89 1,117 777 2,029 7.7 Italy 17 5 138 535 694 2.6 Spain 11 7 156 313 487 1.9 Other EU countries 202 196 1,244 328 1,970 7.5 Other Europe 27 70 517 281 894 3.4 Algeria 174 358 2,595 1,525 4,652 17.7 Morocco 55 170 1,498 534 2,258 8.6 Tunisia 31 97 1,006 523 1,656 6.3 Other Africa 217 699 5645 1,376 7,937 30.2 Turkey 11 34 430 103 578 2.2 Other 147 332 2,146 524 3,148 12.0 All 938 2,055 16,491 6,821 26,305 100,0 Source: INSEE, 2010 Population census. and to their villages of origin via hometown asso- and ensuring the representativeness of the col- ciations (see, e.g., Chauvet et al, 2013)8. lected data. Any survey of migrants could face challenges such as (i) international migrants repre- Finally, the third group to be surveyed was the sent a relatively small proportion of the population Ivorian migrants. The alternative option could of a given location, (ii) undocumented and iso- have been to survey Senegalese migrants, but lated migrants are likely to avoid interviewers, and their remittance behavior is known to be very (iii) that no comprehensive and reliable sampling similar to that of Malian migrants (in terms of frame is available. Indeed, although some official amounts sent and frequency). Ivorian migration to data existed on the distribution of migrants in the France is more recent, thus Ivorians are much less City of Montreuil (INSEE, 2008–2010 Population informed and organized than the Malian or Sen- Censuses), it was outdated and incomplete and egalese migrants. It was considered that this fact did not provide detailed information on the com- could impact the channels used to remit funds. position of the migrant population with respect to employment status and remittances behavior. To be included in the sample, the interviewed Therefore, on the one hand, the size and boundar- migrants had to comply with four eligibility criteria: ies of the target population was unknown, and on • Ages 18–65 years old; the other hand, the population was likely to be wary of researchers and hence hard to reach. • Born in one of the selected countries; • Income source (from a regular or occasional In this context, pure random or stratified cluster activity, a declared or undeclared one, etc.); and, sampling would have been excessively time- consuming to implement as most primary sample • Sent remittances within the 12 months preced- units would have contained but a few targeted ing the survey. migrants, if any at all, and refusal rates would have been high among some (e.g. undocumented) Sample methodology subpopulations. To mitigate these concerns, a and approach strategy sampling technique derived from a combination of two standard procedures in migrants’ surveys, The sample methodology adopted was aimed at namely the “center sampling technique” (Biao surveying 150 individuals per migrant community, et al., 2011) and “respondent driven sampling” (Heckathorn, 1997) was used. 8 Chauvet L., Gubert F., Mercier M. et Mesplé-Somps S., 2013, “Migrants’ HTAs and Local Development in Mali”, DT DIAL 2013–11, 37p. THE GREENBACK 2.0 SURVEY: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 7 The “center sampling technique” consisted of Following this mixed procedure, the survey was primarily identifying “centers” (or “aggregation carried out by a team of 15 interviewers, divided centers”) in Montreuil, gathering large and vari- into three groups, each covering one group, over ous numbers of migrants, and potential key infor- a period of approximately two months. mants amongst them. To get as representative a sample as possible, in terms of community and Table 4 below provides the composition of the individual migrant characteristics, a high number final sample. Overall, 973 migrants from all three of “centers” was selected. Interviewers were then groups were initially contacted to achieve a final asked to randomly get in contact with migrants at sample of 428 surveyed individuals (approxi- each interception point. mately one refusal for one interview), 20 percent of whom are women. Units from this initial representative sample served as “seeds” for an additional “respondent driven sampling” (RDS), which is a variant of standard snowballing techniques whereby each surveyed individual is asked to provide a fixed number of additional migrants to be contacted by Table 4: Sample composition by country interviewers. Yet, within the RDS procedure, initial of origin respondents are additionally given incentives to Number of Number of recruit other interviewees themselves. To ensure Contacted Surveyed Women representativeness, interviewers were asked to Migrants Migrants % balance migrants’ profiles, especially the “seeds’” Algerians 345 156 22 profiles, in terms of gender, age, duration of stay, Ivorians 339 148 26 and professional occupation. A detailed descrip- Malians 289 124 11 tion of the sampling and fieldwork procedures is provided in the Annex. Total 973 428 20 3 Empirical findings The demographic and economic level, 15 percent with a master level, and 2 percent with a PhD level). Finally, the majority of Ivorian profiles migrants attended secondary school (30 percent Table 5 summarizes the average demographic have the lower secondary level and 24 percent characteristics of the final sample. It includes with the upper secondary level). It is worth not- statistics on gender, age, educational level, mari- ing that 27 percent of Algerian migrants achieved tal status, and length of stay in France. The first their highest educational level in France, as did 15 observation is that the overall sample is not percent of Ivorians and 17 percent of Malians. gender–balanced, as 80 percent of interviewed At the time of their first entry in France, 26.3 per- migrants are males. This gap is more signifi- cent of the sample migrants had a tourist visa, cant for the Malian sample (89 percent) than for almost 20 percent of them were undocumented, the Algerian and Ivorian samples (respectively 11 percent had a student visa and only 7.7 per- 78 percent and 74 percent are men). The large cent a visa for work (see Table 6). A large share proportion of men in the sample stems from the of Malian migrants entered in France without any eligibility criteria as less women worked and sent documentation (42.7 percent). Ivorians have the remittances in the 12 months preceding the sur- highest proportion of asylum seekers (12 per- vey. The over-representation of men in the sample cent), while many Algerians came to France to also reflects the fact that men, notably Malian pursue their studies. The situation of the migrants men, tend to migrate more than women. interviewed seems to have changed since their The Ivorian emigration to France is a more recent arrival in France, as shown by Table 7: in 2014, phenomenon than the Malian and Algerian migra- most of the interviewees had a visa for work (27.6 tions: 63 percent of the surveyed Ivorian migrants percent), long-term residency (24.3 percent) or arrived in France before 2008, in comparison to have in the meantime acquired French nationality the 83 percent and 77 percent of the Malian and (18.9 percent). Algerian migrants respectively. Not surprisingly, On average, 46 percent of the interviewees are the Malian migrants were older than the other married. However, this percentage is higher for migrants in the sample: 29 percent of the Malian Malian migrants (63 percent) than for Algerian migrants were over 50 year-old (as opposed to and Ivorian migrants (46 and 42 percent respec- the 19 and 16 percent of the Algerian and Ivorian tively). Single people are the second most impor- samples). tant category. They constitute respectively 38, 33, Regarding education, the number of migrants and 26 percent of the Algerian, Ivorian, and Malian with no qualifications or who had only attended sub-samples (see Table 5). primary school is very high (39 percent) for the Table 8 presents the composition of migrants’ Malians, compared to the Algerian and Ivorian families and Figure 1 the distribution by num- migrants (respectively 4 and 20 percent). The ber of relatives residing in the country of origin. Algerian migrants are the most educated migrants, Interviewees were asked to list all their first grade with more than 40 percent of them achieving a relatives (parents, siblings, spouse, and children) tertiary level of education (10 percent with a short- residing with them in France, in the country of cycle tertiary level, 17 percent with a bachelor 8 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 9 Table 5: Main characteristics of the migrants’ sample, by country of origin Algerians Ivorians Malians Total Freq. Col % Freq. Col % Freq. Col % Freq. Col % Sex Male 121 78 109 74 110 89 340 80 Female 35 22 39 26 13 11 87 20 Arrival in France After 2008 36 23 55 37 21 17 112 26 Before 2008 120 77 93 63 103 83 316 74 Age category` 18–24 10 7 8 5 2 2 20 5 25–29 27 18 22 15 13 11 62 15 30–39 50 33 47 32 36 30 133 32 40–49 37 24 47 32 35 29 119 28 50–59 10 7 19 13 28 23 57 14 60+ 18 12 4 3 7 6 29 7 Education level None 2 2 2 2 3 6 7 2 Primary 3 2 23 18 18 33 44 14 Lower secondary 20 16 37 30 10 19 67 22 Upper secondary 45 35 30 24 17 31 92 30 Post-sec., non ter. 3 2 5 4 2 4 10 3 Short-cycle tertiary 13 10 13 10 1 2 27 9 Bachelor 22 17 10 8 2 4 34 11 Master 19 15 4 3 1 2 24 8 PhD 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 Married 72 46 62 42 79 63 199 46 Marital status Married monogamous 64 41 56 38 65 52 185 43 Married polygamous 0 0 0 0 14 11 14 3 Separated 8 5 6 4 3 2 17 4 Divorced 12 8 14 9 3 2 29 7 Widow 4 3 1 1 1 1 6 1 Single 59 38 49 33 32 26 140 33 Cohabiting 8 5 22 15 6 5 36 8 Other 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 French citizenship acquisition 12 8 38 26 12 10 62 15 By gender M F M F M F M F Age, avg 38.3 43.1 37.5 42.6 41.5 49.5 39.1 43.8 Length of stay in France, avg 15.0 20.0 11.6 18.2 17.5 25.8 14.7 20.0 Total 156 100 148 100 124 100 428 100 * Education levels follow the ISCED international classification (UNESCO). The post-secondary non tertiary class includes all vocational or university courses after the high school diploma and which last no more than 1 year. 10 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 6: Documents at the time of first entry in France Algerians Ivorians Malians Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Visa—work 13 8.5 31 6.0 8 8.9 52 7.7 Visa—student 29 19.0 17 11.3 1 0.8 47 11.0 Asked for asylum 0 0.0 18 12.0 1 0.8 19 4.4 Visa—tourism 37 24.2 37 24.7 38 30.7 112 26.2 Visa—not needed 13 8.5 9 20.7 11 6.5 33 12.2 Visa—other* 22 14.4 14 9.3 2 1.6 38 8.9 French nationality 13 8.5 2 1.3 0 0.0 15 3.5 Undocumented 11 7.2 19 12.7 53 42.7 83 19.4 Do not answer 15 9.8 3 2.0 10 8.1 28 6.6 Total 153 100 150 100 124 100 427 100 * Other type of visas includes: visa released by another EU Member State and visa for family reunification purposes. Table 7: Legal status of interviewees in 2014 Algerians Ivorians Malians Total Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Visa—work 41 26.8 29 19.7 47 37.9 117 27.6 Visa—student 6 3.9 2 1.4 0 0.0 8 1.9 Visa for family reunification 10 6.5 2 1.4 0 0.0 12 2.8 Asked for asylum 0 0.0 16 10.9 2 1.6 18 4.2 French nationality 33 21.6 34 23.1 13 10.5 80 18.9 Long-term residence visa 40 26.1 35 23.8 28 22.6 103 24.3 Undocumented (documentation to be renewed) 1 0.6 4 2.7 1 0.8 6 1.4 Has never had visa 10 6.5 19 12.9 25 20.2 54 12.7 Other 5 3.3 5 3.4 7 5.7 17 4.0 No response 7 4.6 1 0.7 1 0.8 9 2.1 Total 153 100 147 100 124 100 424 100 Table 8: Average number of relatives in France origin and elsewhere. Not surprisingly, as this has or elsewhere, by country of origin been put in evidence by other studies, the aver- age Malian household is larger than the Ivorian In the and Algerian households: on average, 8.2 relatives Origin In Other Total Country In France Countries as compared to 6.3 for the Ivorians and Algeri- Algerians 6.37 3.85 2.43 0.08 ans. These differences in average household size between communities are consistent with those Ivorians 6.35 3.84 2.27 0.24 observed in national household surveys. Malians Malians 8.20 6.11 1.87 0.22 can also distinguish themselves from the other migrants by the number of their relatives that do not live in France. They have, on average, six relatives that reside in Mali, whereas Ivorian and EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 11 Figure 1: Distribution by number of relatives residing in the country of origin Algerians Ivorians Malians 31% 23% 39% 20% 20% 15% 15% 18% 23% 12% 15% 10% 17% 11% 12% 5% 4% 6% 1% 3% 1% 0 1–2 3–4 5–6 7–8 9–10 11+ 0 1–2 3–4 5–6 7–8 9–10 11+ 0 1–2 3–4 5–6 7–8 9–10 11+ Figure 2: Distribution by number of children left in the country of origin (percentage of migrants with children) Algerians Ivorians Malians 41% 89% 68% 33% 16% 9% 13% 13% 7% 3% 3% 6% 0 1 2 3+ 0 1 2 3+ 0 1 2 3+ Algerian migrants have only 3.8 relatives in their The majority of migrants in the sample, what- country of origin. Amongst the migrants with chil- ever their country of origin, are employed. This is dren, 89 percent of the Algerian migrants live with notably true for migrants who arrived in France their children in France, 68 percent of the Ivori- more recently: among the migrants who arrived ans, and only 33 percent of the Malian migrants. after 2008, 76.9 percent are employees, while 66 percent of Malian migrants with children have the percentage is only 49.1 for those who arrived their children in Mali (amongst them, 62 percent before 2008. The most frequent alternative to with three children and more). being an employee is to have an occasional job (37.5 percent before 2008 and 8.9 percent after Job type, occupation and sector 2008). Very few migrants were self-employed (10.7 percent before 2008 and 7.0 percent after Having an income (regardless of the source, 2008) or are employers themselves (1.8 percent from a regular or occasional activity, a declared before 2008 and 3.2 percent after 2008). Most or undeclared one, etc.) was one of the eligibil- employees also have a formal written contract ity criteria for being part of the survey. Migrants (see Table 9). were asked to describe their main occupation (i.e. the occupation they consider as being the most As shown in Figure 3, half of the interviewed important one) and to report their earnings. migrants benefits from good working conditions. 12 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 9: Job distribution by type of contract for those who arrived in France before and after 2008 Before 2008 After 2008 Formal Written Contract Formal Written Contract No Yes Total Tot % No Yes Total Tot % Dependent 17 38 55 49.1 14 227 243 76.9 Occasional 40 1 42 37.5 15 13 28 8.9 Autonomous—employer 0 0 2 1.8 0 0 10 3.2 Autonomous—Liberal profession 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 3 0.9 Autonomous—own 0 0 12 10.7 0 0 22 7.0 Autonomous—family firm 0 0 0 0.0 t 0 0 4 1.3 Autonomous—Coop member 0 0 0 0.0 t 0 0 1 0.3 Coop member and employee 0 1 1 0.9 0 0 0 0.0 Did not respond 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 5 1.5 Total 57 40 112 100,0 29 241 316 100,0 Figure 3: Average hours worked per week and Economic Studies in France (Institut National (percentage) de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, INSEE), which distinguishes occupations in terms 60% of their content (tasks, responsibilities) and their level of qualification, we observe that half of the 51% 50% male migrants and around 40 percent of the female migrants are qualified workers (mainly technicians, and shopkeepers) (see Table 10). 40% However, differences appear with regard to the type of occupation between the three migrant 30% communities and gender. Roughly 39 percent of interviewed women are classified as workers in the “services to individuals” sector. Most of them 20% take care of children or elderly persons. Malian 14% males seem to be more numerous as unqualified 11% 10% 8% workers than the other migrants. A non-negligible 7% 5% proportion of Algerian and Ivorian males have 3% highly-qualified occupations within the service 0% sector (around 13 and 9 percent respectively). 1–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–100 Service activities cover 65 percent of the declared occupations, with a high proportion of services They work the official number of hours per week to individuals (maid, cleaner, nanny, elderly care, (around 39 hours) and most of them have only etc.) categorized under the “other service activi- one job. This category contrasts with those who ties” (29 percent), followed by hospitality and declare having a part-time job (32 percent) espe- catering (16 percent), retail trade (14 percent) and cially since 25 percent of them have more than health care services (6 percent). Manufacturing one job. Among those who have more than one and construction represent only 3 percent and job, few of them work more than 39 hours per 11 percent respectively. Female migrants are more week and succeed in earning above the legal mini- prone to work in the services sector and males in mum wage. the construction sector. The proportions of males and females in the manufacturing sector, as well Following the official classification of professions as in the retail trade and hospitality and catering provided by the National Institute for Statistics sector, are quite similar. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 13 Table 10: Distribution by type of occupation,* by gender Algerians Ivorians Malians Total M F M F M F M F n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Highly qualified workers** 16 13.2 3 8.6 10 9.3 0 0.0 3 2.7 1 7.7 29 8.6 4 4.6 Qualified workers in trade & 74 61.2 10 28.6 55 50.9 22 56.4 40 36.4 4 30.8 169 49.8 36 41.4 services*** Unqualified workers 12 9.9 5 14.3 24 22.2 0 0.0 56 50.9 7 53.8 92 27.1 12 13.8 Drivers of machines & transp. 10 8.3 0 0.0 8 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 5.3 0 0.0 Services to individuals 4 3.3 16 45.7 8 7.4 17 43.6 4 3.6 1 7.7 16 4.7 34 39.1 Missing 5 4.1 1 2.9 3 2.8 0 0.0 7 6.4 0 0.0 15 4.4 1 1.1 Total 121 100 35 100 109 100 39 100 110 100 13 100 339 100 87 100 * Occupation categories follow international classifications and INSEE codes, in the table above at the lowest level of disaggregation (1 digit). ** Highly qualified workers include lawyers & managers, highly qualified technicians, executive officers. Figure 4: Sector of occupation (in percentage, full sample) 3% 10% 11% 14% Manufacturing Construction 29% Trade, repair of cars or motorcycles Transport & storage Hospitality and catering industry Scientific & technical activities 7% Social & health care Other services Other 6% 16% 4% Individual income Table 11: Individual income (mean and standard error9) Table 11 shows average individual incomes for the three communities of migrants disaggregated by   Men Women gender. Amongst male migrants, Algerians declare Standard Standard the highest individual monthly income on aver-   Mean Error Mean Error age (€1,402) while the lowest individual monthly Algerians 1,402.13 € 50.0 1,060.42 € 100.2 income is declared by the Ivorians (€1,108). Malian Ivorians 1,108.55 € 52.5 1,143.30 € 68.5 migrants earn, on average, €1,185 per month. Malians 1,185.33 € 48.4 1,155.38 € 124.3 These observed differences in earnings are linked Total 1,236.10 € 29.8 1,112.24 € 53.4 to differences in qualifications (Algerians were more educated on average) and experience (Mali- 9 The standard error of the mean (SE) is the standard deviation of the ans were early migrants and older than Ivorians sample-mean’s estimate of a population mean. It shows how close to the on average). Except for the Algerian community, population mean the sample mean is likely to be. SE is used to calculate the there was almost no gender difference in average confidence interval of an estimate. 14 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Figure 5: Household income by country of origin 40 35 30 25 20 Algerians 15 Ivorians 10 Malians 5 0 From From From From From From From More 501 to 1001 to 1501 to 2001 to 2501 to 3001 to 4001 to than 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4000 5000 5000 income. On average, Ivorian women actually earn unchanged for 36 percent and 25 percent of them €35 more than men. It is worth noticing that respectively. for all sub-samples standard errors of average incomes are very low. This means that most indi- viduals of each group earn similar income what- Savings and financial inclusion ever their qualifications and experience. All of Savings them earn at least the minimum French legal sal- A large majority of the interviewed migrants ary (SMIC, Salaire Minimum Interprofessionnel de were not able to save over the six-month period Croissance) that is equal to €1,136 per month, one preceding the survey: 60 percent of the Alge- exception being male Algerians who earn higher rian migrants, 65 percent of the Ivorian migrants, incomes on average. and 70 percent of the Malian migrants declare that they could not save part of their earnings Figure 5 shows the average household income (Table 12). This also reveals that they do not con- for each target group. It confirms that Algerians sider remittance money as a form of savings, enjoy higher incomes than Ivorians or Malians. which is consistent with the findings of other This difference is even more important when studies, including in Turin. considering income per capita, at least between Algerian and Malian migrants since the latter have Those who managed to save part of their earnings larger households. have very specific characteristics (Table 12). They tend to be more educated, married, and belong As a consequence of their improved legal sta- predominantly to the 30–49 years cohort. They tus since their arrival in France, the majority of are also strongly over-represented among those migrants declare that their income has increased migrants who arrived in France before 2008. This since they arrived (52 percent of the whole suggests that financial inclusion in a new coun- sample, 63 percent of Algerians and 56 percent try takes time, and that there is a lag between of Malians), with the exception of the Ivorians. In the date of arrival and the moment the migrants this last group, only 38 percent of interviewees can start saving money. Those characteristics are declare that their income has increased, 26 per- similar across communities. One striking differ- cent that it has decreased and 33 percent that ence is the role of women in saving. While Alge- it has not changed. Likewise, most Algerians rian women declare less often than men that they and Malians have the feeling that their income is could save money, the exact contrary happens for more stable than when they arrived whereas for Ivorian and Malian women. the Ivorians, income seems to be uncertain or EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 15 Table 12: Savings behavior of migrants, and characteristics of the migrants who saved money Algerians Ivorians Malians Total % % % % percent of migrants who saved 39.9 34.7 29.5 35.0 Share of savers among . . . . . . female migrants 29.4 39.5 30.8 34.1 . . . migrants with higher education 52.7 32.1 100(a) 48.3 . . . married migrants 47.5 44.6 32.1 40.5 . . . migrants aged 30–49 years 45.9 43.0 34.3 41.5 . . . early migrants (before 2008) 74.3 84.6 100(b) 82.8 (a) Out of 4 individuals only. (b) Out of 13 individuals only. Banking products and services average, only 6 percent of migrants who arrived in France before 2008 do not have a bank account. On average, 85 percent of the interviewed migrants This percentage increases up to 29 percent for hold at least one bank account. Some differences those who arrived after 2008. This percentage is appear across the three migrant communities (Fig- nearly twice as big for Ivorians (51 percent), which ure 6). Overall, the Ivorians seem to have a lower illustrates the difficulty of more recent migrants to rate of access to the banking system, 21.6 percent get access to the formal banking system. This is of them declaring that they have no bank account also true, but in a smaller proportion, for migrants at all. Conversely, 21 and 38 percent of the Algeri- from Mali and Algeria who arrived after 2008: ans and Malians respectively declare that they have respectively 43 percent and 25 percent of them two or more bank accounts. The fact that the Ivo- still have no bank account. rian migrants have a lower access to bank accounts mainly stems from the fact that they arrived more Amongst those who arrived in France before recently in France. This is illustrated by Figure 7. On 2008, 68 percent have a bank account either in a commercial bank or at the Banque Postale (Fig- ure 8). This percentage drops to 40 percent for Figure 6: Bank account ownership the migrants who arrived after 2008, who tend to 100% have no account (41 percent) and 4.4 percent of 90% them keep an account in their country of origin (mainly the Ivorian migrants). The vast majority 80% of migrants who have no bank account in France 70% declare that this is because they cannot have one, 60% due to their inability to provide the required docu- 50% mentation (Figure 9). 40% Figure 10 presents the bank financial products 30% and services used by migrants. A large majority of 20% respondents have their wages directly deposited 10% into their personal bank account (68.7 percent). A 0% similar proportion uses their personal account to Algeria Côte Mali Total make regular payments for electricity bills, rent, etc. d'Ivoire (68.4 percent). Other uses include bank transfers None One Two or more (55.5 percent), insurance products (34.9 percent), 16 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Figure 7: Bank account ownership, before and after 2008 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Before After Before After Before After Before After 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Algeria Côte d'Ivoire Mali Total None One Two or more Figure 8: Type of bank account, before and after 2008 100% 90% 80% 70% None 60% Bank in France 50% Postal bank, in France 40% Foreign Bank 30% Two accounts or more 20% 10% 0% Before After Before After Before After Before After 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Algeria Côte d'Ivoire Mali Total and on-line services (23.6 percent).10 There are As suggested by Figure 11, most migrants who only minor differences between migrant com- have a bank account also have a debit card, which munities, except for insurance products (less than is linked to that bank account (78 percent of 10 percent of Malian migrants declare using this them). Figure 11 also shows that credit cards are service), and on-line services (for which Algerian much less common than debit cards: only 5.6 per- migrants are over-represented). Figure 10 also cent of the migrants declare holding one, most of suggests that the use of credit facilities is quite them belonging to the Algerian community (as rare in the sample of interviewed migrants: less comes out from Figure 12). than 5 percent of the sample migrants declare having a mortgage and only 11.3 percent declare Figure 12 shows some disparities among migrants benefiting from a consumer credit loan. depending on their community of origin. While Malian migrants in particular tend to use debit 10 The questionnaire used a broad definition of on-line services, including any type of activity made via internet banking, from checking the move- ments’ list to ordering payments and transfers. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 17 Figure 9: Reasons for not having a bank Figure 11: Type of cards held, all migrants account in France (percent) 100% 90 90% 80 70 80% 60 70% 50 60% 40 50% 30 40% 20 30% 10 0 20% Debit Credit Prepaid Other None 10% card card card 0% Note: This is a multiple response question, so that responses may sum to Algeria Côte Mali Total more than 100 percent. d'Ivoire I can’t have one Access to credit My partner has one/I don’t need Only 16.2 percent of the sample migrants declare I don’t earn enough having a loan. Despite the fact that Ivorian I don’t trust/other migrants seem to have a lower access to bank- ing, almost 23.7 percent of them declare hav- cards which require on-line authorization (for ing a loan, versus only 12.1 percent of the Malian 50 percent of them),11 this is not so much the case and 12.3 percent of Algerian migrants. However, for Algerians or Ivorians. Ivorian migrants seem to hold smaller loans in value. 11 This means that any payment by a debit card systematically triggers a request for authorization to debit. The request is rejected if the amount to check for availability of funds in the account, even for small transac- of disposable funds in the cardholder’s account is not sufficient. In France, tions; 2) on-line authorization above a certain threshold and debit from the debit cards can be categorized into three groups or tiers, depending on account within 2 days; 3) no pre-authorization and differed debit from the the customer profile: 1) on-line authorization required for each transaction account at a fixed date every month. Figure 10: Services and products used by migrants (percentage) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 r t e t s es it t s es er en si uc fe nd ed e ag th po nc ic c ns od ym vi Bo cr tg O rv de ra tra r pr or se se pa er su M ry m ng nk e ss In lls la su lin Ba vi le Bi Sa Sa on n- ct O tra C on C Algeria Côte d'Ivoire Mali Total Note: This is a multiple response question, so that responses may sum to more than 100 percent 18 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Figure 12: Type of cards held, by target group (percent) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 r , sh ion t rd d nk r e ui rd bi e ar on ca th de ba ire ar req t ca ut ed d ca thre izat tc N O ol n- d ed di n bi ai r no ve o re tio e er ep h D iza D C iff d, Pr ab a ,d ar d d, tc rd o di c re or qu it it C th re b eb e au D Algeria Côte d'Ivoire Mali Total Note: This is a multiple response question, so that responses may sum to more than 100 percent. Figure 13: Distribution of loan by size (in percentage of the 60 migrants who declare having a loan) 11% 11% 9% 24% <1,000 45% 1,000–9,999 10,000–19,999 20,000–99,999 100,000 and more Figure 13 shows that 45 percent of the sample the Postal bank: 73.7 percent of Algerians, 68.6 migrants who declare having a loan (less than percent of Ivorians, and 66.7 percent of Malians. 60 individuals), hold a loan of less than €10,000. Parents and family are the main alternative for Two-thirds of them are from Côte d’Ivoire. 24 per- contracting a loan (respectively 17.1 and 13.3 per- cent of all migrants have borrowed an amount cent of Ivorian and Malian migrants who have ranging from €10,000€ to €20,000—again two- a loan). thirds of them coming from Côte d’Ivoire. Finally, 11 percent of all the migrants have a loan of less Although data on actual loans demonstrate a than €1,000 and 11 percent have a loan of more clear preference for formal financial institutions than €100,000. This latter figure only includes among migrants who already have access to Algerian migrants. credit, less than 40 percent of them would turn to a financial institution if they would need a loan Around 70 percent migrants who have a loan (Figure 14). A large majority of them would ask have contracted it with a commercial bank or EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 19 Figure 14: To whom would you ask for a loan if other estimates computed using different sources you needed one? of data.13 70 Who are the main remittance 60 recipients and what are 50 remittances sent for? 40 When asked to list the number of individuals 30 they usually send remittances to, migrants cited 20 between one and two persons (Table 13). While 10 most Algerians usually send funds to only one 0 person, Malians are found to remit to two persons Friends and Banks Microcredit Other on average. This reflects the fact that the size of family the households back home is larger in Mali than in Algeria (Figure 2). Recipients are not necessarily Algeria Côte d'Ivoire Mali Total the (sole) beneficiaries of the remitted funds: they may only be those who receive the funds for con- venience purposes. In all three migrant communities, the majority of their family and friends (few of them would how- remittance flows is directed towards parents or ever ask French friends/family). Only 31 percent siblings (Table 14). Partners and children of the of the Algerians would have recourse to a bank migrants are recipients only in a minority of cases, including the Postal bank, or another financial albeit in a higher percentage for the Malian sam- institution, against 45 percent of the Ivorians, and ple, where partners are found to represent nearly 35 percent of the Malians. a quarter of all remittance recipients. This specific As illustrated by Figure 14, microcredit is hardly feature for Malians may reflect the fact that, whilst seen as an alternative by the migrants who would a significant share of Malians are married, most of consider contracting a loan.12 This appears to be them have their spouse living in the home country. linked to a lack of knowledge of migrants about In all three samples, friends and partner’s relatives the possibilities offered by microcredit, as only represent a very minor share of recipients. 50 percent of them know about it. In addition, In terms of amounts, remittance recipients are only seven out of the whole sample (1.6 percent) found to have received an average amount of confirm having contracted a loan with a micro- €1,129 over the 12 month period preceding the credit institution (none of them were Algerians). Remittances behavior Overall, data reveal contrasting remittance pat- Table 13: Number of recipients per migrant terns and behaviors between Algerians, Ivorians, and Malians. Malian migrants rank first in terms of Algerians Ivorians Malians Total the average amount sent per individual migrant Number of recipients per year (€1,894), before Algerians (€1,269), and per migrant 1.25 1.42 1.93 1.51 Ivorians (€1,150). These figures are consistent with Number of migrants who did not fill in the module on recipients 3 3 0 6 12 Microcredit is the provision of credit services for people lacking access to banking and related services either because they have no physical col- laterals or because of their poor historic credit records. The European Com- 13 In the report of the African Development Bank (“Migrant remittances. A mission defines as “micro” a credit that is below the threshold of €10,000 development challenge,” 2007) on Morocco, Mali, Senegal and the Comoros, for individual and family reasons and below €25,000 for entrepreneurs. See for e.g., annual remittances sent by Malian migrants were estimated at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/finance/borrowing/microcredit. €1,925. 20 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 14: Link with the remittance recipients (as a percentage of all transactions) Algerians Ivorians Malians Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Parents 73 38 82 40 75 31 230 36 Siblings 60 31 66 32 64 27 190 30 Spouse/partner 4 2 11 5 55 23 70 11 Children 3 2 7 3 15 6 25 4 Other relatives 22 12 24 12 19 8 65 10 Partner’s relatives 3 2 5 2 0 0 8 1 Friends 10 5 9 4 4 2 23 4 Other 16 8 2 1 7 3 25 4 Total 191 100 206 100 239 100 636 100 Table 15: Average amount sent per year, by recipient Algerians Ivorians Malians Total   Mean Obs Mean Obs Mean Obs Mean Obs Parents 879 € 67 1,064 € 74 1,303 € 55 1,068 € 196 Siblings 906 € 54 872 € 61 1,194 € 45 974 € 160 Spouse/partner 8,667 € 3 922 € 9 1,707 € 42 1,963 € 54 Children 4,767 € 3 793 € 7 2,219 € 9 2,096 € 19 Other relatives 695 € 22 634 € 20 761 € 14 690 € 56 Partner’s relatives 550 € 2 1,950 € 5 1,550 € 7 Friends 495 € 10 110 € 9 423 € 3 328 € 22 Other 1,895 € 15 463 € 2 1,940 € 3 1,758 € 20 Total(*) 1,124 € 176 910 € 187 1,373 € 171 1,129 € 534 (*) Because of missing values on remittance amounts (accounting for absence of response), the number of observations is smaller than in Table 13. survey (Table 15). After disaggregating the sample basis in the case of Mali and, to a lesser extent, by migrant community, Malians are not only found Côte d’Ivoire, most remittance recipients in Alge- to send remittances to more persons, they are ria receive remittances only occasionally or with also found to send more on average to each one a frequency never more than two or three times of them. However, the figures reveal substantial a year. The results for Mali and Algeria are again variations in the amounts sent, depending on the strongly consistent with those from other studies identity of the recipients: Malian spouses tend to using different sources of data.14 receive higher amounts than parents and siblings. The same seems to be true for children, but it As Malians and Ivorians send remittances more should be noted that they represent a very small often than Algerians, the average amount sent minority among remittance recipients. Strong per transaction is significantly lower for those variations are also observed in the Algerian and two samples (Table 17). Malians and Ivorians Ivorian samples, but the small number of observa- respectively send €151 and €122 on average per tions for spouses and children casts some doubt about the validity of the estimated figures. 14 In a recent paper based on the data collected through the MIREM A focus on the frequency of remittances also (“Migration de Retour au Maghreb”) project, for e.g., the percentage of reveals highly contrasting patterns between Algerian migrants remitting either occasionally or once a year was esti- mated at 38.3 percent (against 38.8 percent in our case) Gubert, F., & Nord- samples (Table 16). Whilst the majority of recipi- man, C. J. (2011). Return migration and small enterprise development in the ents receive remittances on a regular, monthly Maghreb. In World Bank, Diaspora for development in Africa, pp. 103–126. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 21 Table 16: Frequency of remittances by recipient Algeria Frequency Less Than Once a 2–3 Times More Than 3 Every Don’t   Once a Year Year a Year Times a Year Month Other Know Total Parents 6 10 20 26 6 3 2 73 Siblings 9 15 12 9 5 7 3 60 Spouse/partner 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 Children 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 Other relatives 8 7 4 1 1 1 0 22 Partner’s relatives 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Friends 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 Other 4 6 2 1 3 0 0 16 Total 36 38 43 38 19 12 5 191 % 18,9% 19,9% 22,5% 19,9% 9,9% 6,3% 2,6% 100,0% Côte d’Ivoire Frequency Less Than Once a 2–3 Times More Than 3 Every Don’t   Once a Year Year a Year Times a Year Month Other Know Total Parents 0 5 12 19 46 0 0 82 Siblings 2 4 12 20 24 4 0 66 Spouse/partner 0 1 2 1 7 0 0 11 Children 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 7 Other relatives 2 2 6 7 6 1 0 24 Partner’s relatives 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 5 Friends 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 9 Other 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Total 5 17 37 50 92 5 0 206 % 2.4% 8.3% 18.0% 24.3% 44.7% 2.4% 0% 100.0% Mali Frequency Less Than Once a 2–3 Times More Than 3 Every Don’t   Once a Year Year a Year Times a Year Month Other Know Total Parents 0 5 7 13 48 2 0 75 Siblings 0 1 14 22 25 2 0 64 Spouse/partner 0 1 5 2 47 0 0 55 Children 0 1 1 0 13 0 0 15 Other relatives 0 1 6 6 5 1 0 19 Partner’s relatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friends 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 Other 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 7 Total 1 11 35 45 139 7 1 239 % 0.4% 4.6% 14.6% 18.8% 58.2% 2.9% 0.4% 100.0% 22 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 17: Mean amount sent per transaction (in durable goods or other types of investment in the euros) Algerian sample. By contrast, the contribution of Algerian migrants to current expenses is much Algerians Ivorians Malians lower. Migrants generally do not have a direct Amount sent per control upon how their families back home use transaction remittances; consequently, those families may in Mean 532.0 122.3 150.7 fact be using the remitted funds for purposes dif- Standard ferent from those declared by the senders. Only deviation 1,248.9 84.1 178.0 a mirror survey amongst remittance recipients would make it possible to evaluate the size of transaction, whilst Algerians send €532 on aver- the gap between the expected and actual use of age. Given that remittance costs are generally remittances. digressive, it is likely that Malians and Ivorians are potentially paying higher transaction costs than Remittance channels and Algerians. This point is further investigated in the associated transaction costs— next section. Regulation of the remittance market in France The high frequency of remittances sent by Malians The regulation of the remittance market in the and Ivorians suggests that they contribute to the European Union falls under Directive 2007/64/ current expenses of their families back home. This CE15 (PSD), whose objective is to establish com- is confirmed by Figure 15 which shows, for each mon rules for a Single Payments Market in the EU. sub-sample, the final use of the remitted funds With regard to remittances, the PSD has removed as declared by the migrants. Again, contrasted patterns emerge between Malians, Ivorians, and Algerians. In the Malian and Ivorian samples, most 15 Directive 2007/64/CE of the European parliament and of the Council of remitted funds are sent for food consumption, 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending health or education purposes, while a significant Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repeal- ing Directive 97/5/EC. share of remitted funds are directed towards Figure 15: Use of remitted funds (percent) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 od n th ts s nt t s t s er en en od ie ng io or l re th ea Fo nc at m m go vi sp O ng uc H st ay Sa ge an le ve si Ed ep er ab ou Tr In Em tr ur H eb D D Algerians Ivorians Malians Note: This is a multiple response question, so that responses sum to more than 100 percent. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 23 the legal obstacles for the provision of remit- transactions and account-based transactions), tance services by non-banks, by creating a lighter but only after receiving the payment order. The regime for Payment Institutions (PIs). In France information that should be supplied relates to the in particular, the transposition of the Directive in amount of the transaction and date of reception 2009 had a significant impact on the remittances of the payment order, as well as the total of fees market, as in 2011, there were 662 PIs licensed, (without discriminating the various elements per- whereas before the Directive came into force, taining to the fees, like the exchange rate used), only commercial banks could provide remittance but no mention is made of the transfer speed services. (time span between the moment the payment order is accepted and the moment the funds are Another aspect of the PSD which is relevant for available to the recipient). This leads to conclude the remittances market relates to transparency that, according to current French legislation, provisions. In the Directive, the transparency 1) there is no obligation for the payment service provisions, which require the payments service provider to supply information on costs before provider to provide to the payer and to the payee the payment order is received; and 2) there is no certain types of information (in particular con- obligation for payment service providers to sup- cerning the amounts of fees, execution time, etc.) ply to their customers information about all the only apply to EU transfers, both for occasional elements of the cost of a transfer, including the and account-based transactions. However, sev- exchange rate or the execution time. eral EU Member States have decided to adopt, for transactions originating in the EU to be paid to beneficiaries located outside the EU, the same Main channels used by remittance provisions or similar ones as for intra-EU trans- senders actions. France is one of them, but the French Table 18 describes the main channels used by regime is nevertheless less protective than the the three groups surveyed and shows the very PSD regime or the regime in other EU coun- low usage of bank accounts to transfer funds. tries. The applicable legislation in France (“Code The differences between the groups appear to Monétaire et Financier”—Article L314-15, supple- be related to the usage of unregulated channels mented by « Arrêté du 29 juillet 200916 ») in fact versus regulated ones: Ivorians typically transfer requires the payment service provider to supply funds using regulated channels, Malians to a lesser information to the sender (both for occasional extent, while Algerians mostly use unregulated channels (cash carried by hand by friends, family members or other persons).17 However, caution 16 Arrêté du 29 juillet 2009, relatif aux relations entre les prestataires de services de paiement et leurs clients en matière d’obligations d’information des utilisateurs de services de paiement et précisant les principales stipula- 17 See “WB-CPSS General Principles for International Remittance Ser­ tions devant figurer dans les conventions de compte de dépôt et les vices,” January 2007, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPAYMENTREM- contrats-cadres de services de paiement. MITTANCE/Resources/New_Remittance_Report.pdf Table 18: Type of channel used (percentage) Algerians Ivorians Malians Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Bank transfer 8 4.2 3 1.5 3 1.3 14 2.2 Bank account to cash 1 0.5 0 0.0 2 0.8 3 0.5 Money transfer 5 2.6 183 88.8 86 36.0 274 43.1 Twin bank accounts 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 0.3 Hand-carried cash to cash 176 92.2 19 9.2 141 59.0 336 52.8 Other 0 0.0 1 0.5 1 0.4 2 0.3 Did not answer 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 2.1 5 0.8 Total 191 100.0 206 100.0 239 100.0 636 100.0 24 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 should be taken with regard to this data as in this market premium does not exist,19 the relatively particular module of the questionnaire a signifi- high percentage of remittances that do not go cant number of migrants refused to answer. The through the regulated service providers can be team of interviewers reported difficulties with partly attributed to the weakness of the payments this module because many migrants, amongst infrastructure in Mali (such as the low density of which a majority of Algerians, were very reluc- distribution points and agencies within the money tant to give detailed information regarding the transfer and banking networks, lack of Automated channels they use to remit funds. The main rea- Teller Machines, banks branches, etc.). It may also son seems to be that many of them do not use be attributed to the strength of the community regulated channels in order to benefit from the ties and the existence of community-based chan- more advantageous exchange rates on the black nels that are commonly used to remit funds (see market and fear being reported. As a result, the AfDB, 2007 and Ponsot, 2011).20 collected information on this module relates to a sub-sample of migrants in which Algerians are Société Générale and Postal bank are the most under-represented. In the case of Algerians, the frequently used bank operators (Figure 16).21 As strong prevalence of unregulated channels is con- for MTOs, Western Union is by far the most fre- firmed by other studies (see, e.g., Mouhoud et al, quent choice (78 percent of flows via MTO), fol- 2014),18 and is reported to be mainly due to the lowed by MoneyGram (9 percent). difference between the official and black market As reported in Figure 17, most transactions are exchange rates. It also results from the lack of performed through regulated channels, regardless trust of Algerian migrants in the Algerian banking system. In the case of Malians, for which a black 20 AfDB (2007, op.cit.) provides a detailed description of the channels used by Malians (see in particular pp.32–37). Their figures on the distribution of remittances by channel are very close to ours. Another detailed descrip- tion of the remittance channels used by Malians is provided by Frédéric Ponsot in his chapter on France that is part of the book edited by Sanket 18 Mouhoud E. M., Margolis D., Miotti L., and Oudinet J. (2014). “To Have Mohapatra and Dilip Ratha entitled “Remittance Markets in Africa” (see and Have Not”: Migration, Remittances, Poverty and Inequality in Alge- Mohapatra S. and Ratha, D. (eds.), 2011,Remittance markets in Africa, World ria, DT DIAL 2014-02, 47p. Another reference is also provided by the Bank Publications, 352p.) website envoidargent.com: (http://envoidargent.solidairesdumonde. 21 Again, this last finding should be taken with caution given the very small org/archive/2011/10/27/transferts-d-argent-la-predominance-des-voies- number of migrants using bank operators. informelles-l.html) 22 With regard to the “foyer” (workers’ hostels) observations, these should 19 As Mali belongs to the WAEMU, where the common currency is CFA, in fact belong to the category ”none,” as they relate to cash that is hand which exchange rate is fixed against the euro. carried. Figure 16: Names of bank and money transfer operators and frequency22 350 317 300 250 205 200 150 100 40 50 24 22 1 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 2 1 0 e am on am ia r ue e P nk M M ia e u t ke fe on st nn al BN R R BD BI Ba ni iq ns Po ar ér gr gr n/ N co U nt ra rim én y ey o n la e La n ni on I-T o on on G r at Af U ni te /N é M /M U es n n ét nt io er on W ci at ne t es So ni in rti U W rd pe rn oo on te C es N P/ W R /N SP N EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 25 Figure 17: Where (or how) did the transaction take place? 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 ) ce p et er ry r e er er TO be o m rn ia nt th w ffi sh ho em ed ns ,M te ce O o o In st ta rm ck m cc l nk al Po ba no en inte ily ba C a (b m To p id fa tri an cy D d/ g en a in Vi Ag ur fri D a a Vi Table 19: How did the transaction take place (for those who used hand-carried cash) ? Algerians Ivorians Malians All % % % % Via an intermediary 21.0 31.6 70.2 42.3 Via a friend/family member returning home 53.4 42.1 23.4 40.2 During own trip back home 23.9 21.1 0.7 14,0 Other 1.7 5.3 5.7 3.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of observations 176 19 141 336 of the specific channel used, and take place at a Table 20: Main advantage of channels used (all dedicated agency. With regard to transactions migrants) (*) where cash is carried by hand, those are mainly Bank Hand-Carried performed by an intermediary (mostly for Mali- Transfer MTOs Cash % ans) or a friend/relative (Table 19). % % Cheaper 16 7 36 When asked to indicate the main advantage of Faster 37 42 8 the channel they use, interviewees responded that Easier 16 6 23 bank transfers and MTOs are faster (in respec- tively 37 and 42 percent of cases) and safer Safer 26 34 17 (respectively, 26 and 34 percent) (see Table 20). Closer 0 5 3 In only a minority of cases, are they considered to Accessible to family back home 0 3 6 be cheaper and easier to use. By contrast, hand- carried cash is considered cheaper (36 percent) Opening hours convenient 0 0 2 and easier (23 percent); according to the inter- Lack of documents 0 1 1 viewed sample, it also appears to be easier to Other 5 2 4 collect and more accessible for recipients in com- Don’t know 0 1 0 parison to remittances sent by banks or MTOs. Total 100 100 100 Number of observations The speed of delivery by remittance channel is (**) 19 186 212 shown in Table 21. Overall, the figures confirm that (*) Answer given to the question “What is the main advantage of the banks and MTOs allow faster transfers: in respec- channel you mostly use? ” tively 63 and 87 percent of cases: respondents (**) The number of observations is not the same as in Table 18 since the information on the pros and cons of channels used comes from a different declared that it takes less than one day to deliver roster in the questionnaire. 26 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 21: Time required for the money to be available at destination (all migrants) (*) Hand-Carried Bank Transfer MTOs Total Cash Less than 1 hour 21.1 54.3 13.2 31.5 Same day 42.1 33.0 31.6 33.1 1 day 10.5 6.5 14.1 11.0 2 days 15.8 2.7 16.5 10.1 3 to 5 days 0.0 0.5 4.7 2.6 6 days or more 10.5 0.0 2.4 1.6 No guaranteed delivery time 0.0 0.0 14.6 7.3 Other 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 Did not answer 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 Did not know 0.0 2.2 0.5 1.2 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Number of observations 19 186 212 426 (*) Answer given to the question “How long it would take for the recipient to get access to the funds? ” the funds via a bank or MTO, while this propor- Table 22: Main disadvantages of channels used tion is only 45 percent in the case of remittances (all migrants) (*) transferred through unregulated channels. Hand- Bank Carried As for the weaknesses and disadvantages of the Transfer MTOs Cash channels used, respectively 53 and 59 percent of % % % the migrants who use bank transfers or unregu- More expensive 42 39 1 lated channels report no weaknesses (Table 22). Slower 0 0 16 This number decreases to 33 percent for those Hard to use 0 1 1 using MTOs. The main reported disadvantages of Less secure 0 1 11 bank transfers and MTOs are their costs. By con- Far from home 0 1 2 trast, the hand-carried cash option is considered Not accessible to family back to be cheaper, but slower and less secure.23 home 0 3 0 Opening hours not convenient 0 4 2 The Costs No inconvenient 53 33 59 The average cost of remittance transfers declared by Other 0 5 6 migrants, expressed as a share of the amount sent, is Did not answer 0 8 0 higher for transactions via MTOs than via bank trans- Don’t know 5 6 0 fers or hand-carried cash transfer (Table 23). The Total 100 100 100 result is similar to the one found in Turin. Number of observations (**) 19 186 212 Migrants seem to have a distorted perception (*) Answer given to the question “What is the main inconvenient of the of the actual cost of remitting funds, as high- channel you mostly use? ” (**) The number of observations is not the same as in Table 17 since the lighted by Figure 18. This table compares the cost information on the pros and cons of channels used comes from a different per transaction as perceived by the interviewed roster in the questionnaire. migrants with that recorded by the World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide database.24 Even 23 Within the Malian sample, the money was lost in 3 transactions out of 79 (3.8 percent). 24 https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/fr EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 27 Table 23: Average cost per transaction as a Table 24: Cost composition (percentage, per percentage of the amount sent, by channel* channel) Hand- Bank Hand-   Bank Carried Transfer MTOs Carried   Transfer MTOs Cash   % % Cash % Algerians Mean 5.1 9.2 0 Fees 27 63 36   Obs. 8 3 63 Exchange rate costs 0 1 0 Ivorians Mean 3.3 8.9 3 Other costs 0 0 1   Obs. 2 109 8 All of the listed above 60 34 37 Malians Mean 1.9 10.6 5.6 None of the listed above 0 1 6 Obs. 1 28 58 Missing or don’t know 13 3 20 All** Mean 4.5 9.2 2.7 Total 100 100 100   Obs. 11 140 129 * Only the main channels are reported in this table. It excludes transfers from a bank account to cash (1 observation), pre-paid cards (1 observation) and other channels (2 observations). **There are much fewer observations than expected due to the fact with regard to MTOs and hand-carried cash. that 102 interviewees did not answer to this question and 42 additional migrants were not able to answer to it. Beyond this misperception, 20 percent of respon- dents state that they do not know the cost composition. It should also be noted that—as expected—the degree of awareness is higher with though the figures are not fully comparable since regard to fees than exchange rate costs. the cost per transaction varies with the amount sent, the table shows that migrants tend to over- Reported level of satisfaction estimate the cost of sending funds through money transfer operators. By contrast, they underesti- Overall, 93 percent of surveyed migrants report mate the cost of sending funds through banks. never having had any problem with the chosen With regard to hand-carried cash, the perceived operator (Figure 19). Among the 7 percent who cost is low (less than 3 percent on average). experienced problems with regard to failure to deliver the money, delays, or errors in registering Finally, Table 24 shows that a majority of migrants the account of the recipient were the most fre- interviewed do not realize that transaction costs quently reported ones. When the reported prob- includes different components—fees, exchange lem occurred, only one third did complain to the rate costs and other hidden costs, in particular manager or the director of the service provider. Figure 18: Comparison of cost between data sources (Greenback 2.0 survey vs. RPW)(*) 25 20 15 10 5 0 Bank Bank MTO MTO Hand to transfer transfer (from (from hand (from (from (from RPW) survey) RPW) survey) survey) Algerians Ivorians Malians (*) RPW: World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide. It should be noted that RPW data refer to sending 345 EUR with regard to Algerians (against an average of 532 EUR for the survey) and 140 EUR for the Malians and Ivorians (against respectively 150 EUR and 122 EUR for the survey). Reference period of data: March, 31st to May, 19th 2014. 28 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Figure 19: Problems with the channel used? Figure 21: Change in the remittances channel? Yes 7% Yes 18% No No 82% 93% Figure 20: How did you choose your main remittances channel? Word of mouth 68% Family in the origin country 10% Advertisement 9% Other 6% Missing 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% As to the choice of the remittance channel, sur- Finally, a rather remarkable feature is the relatively veyed migrants overwhelmingly responded that it high stability over time of the channel used to send was mostly based on word-of-mouth (68 percent, remittances. Since their arrival in France, 82 percent see Figure 20). Only 10 percent resorted to family of respondents have been using the same channel contacts in their country of origin (mostly Alge- (Figure 21). However, it is interesting to note that, rians), and 9 percent were influenced by adver- when changes occurred, the shift has been mostly in tisements in public spaces, on internet or in the favor of regulated channels in the Malian community, media (mostly Malians), suggesting a less intense while the reverse is true for the Ivorian community. circulation of information within the Ivorian com- munity, partly due to more recent and less dense Trends in remittance flows migrant networks. Other channels of information Migrants were asked if the amount of remittances include associations, groups or religious meetings they send back to their countries of origin has (6 percent). A vast majority of migrants (91 per- changed over the course of their stay in France. cent) additionally declared that they had no dif- As suggested by Table 25, remittances decreased ficulties in finding the relevant information on for a small number of migrants within each existing remittance channels. group (from 16 to 23 percent) while remittances EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 29 Table 25: Evolution of remittance amounts 64 percent of them declared that they have since arrival, by country of origin reduced these amounts since then, which may lead us to conclude that most of the reduc- Algerians Ivorians Malians Remittance Amounts . . . % % % tions can be attributed to the economic crisis. This is consistent with migrant’s perception of Increased 39 32 58 an increasing precariousness of their economic Decreased 23 20 16 situation. Indeed, whereas over one third of Remained stable 38 48 26 the surveyed migrants declared that their job has become less secure and their income has increased the highest in the Malian community, decreased since 2008, this proportion increases followed by the Algerians. Among Ivorians, remit- to two thirds within the subsample of migrants tances have remained stable over time in a major- who subsequently reduced the amount of money ity of cases. they send back home. Symmetrical reasons for an increase or a decrease Reverse remittances in remittances amounts since their arrival were To conclude this section on the channels, the put forward by interviewees, whatever their coun- costs and the evolution of remittance flows, it try of origin (Figure 22). An increase of remit- is worth investigating “reverse remittances,” tances amounts is explained by an increase in i.e. remittances received by the migrants them- income, in the needs of recipients or in their num- selves (Figure 23).They account for a small but ber in the country of origin for respectively 66, 19 non-negligible share of Ivorian migrants and 9 percent of them. Alongside, a decrease in (12 percent) and to a lesser extent of Algerian income, in the needs, or in the number of recipi- and Malian migrants (respectively 7 and 5 per- ents were the reasons provided by respectively cent). Remittances received by Algerians mostly 55, 13 and 15 percent of interviewees as the rea- come from their parents in the country of origin Increase 66% sons for a decrease in remittances amounts. An in income (82 percent), they equally come from family increasing cost of living in France is another rea- Increase in close relatives or friends in both the members, son provided by the migrants who had to reduce the needs of origin and countries 19%destination for Ivorian the amount of their remittances. of recipients and Malian migrants. These observations are Increase in with the role played by migrant net- consistent It is worth noting that a vast majority of the the number works, 9% mostly for recent immigrant groups, such migrants who reported a decrease in their remit- of recipients tance flows arrived in France before 2008 and as Ivorians. Other 6% Figure 22: Reasons for an increase or decrease in remittances amounts 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Reasons for an increase in remittances amounts Reasons for a decrease in remittances amounts Increase Decrease 66% 55% in income in income Increase in the needs 19% Decrease in the 13% of recipients needs of recipients Increase in Decrease in the the number 9% 15% number of recipients of recipients Other 18% Other 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%   Decrease 55% in income Decrease in the 13% needs of recipients 30 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Figure 23: Reverse remittances, by country of origin Algerians Ivorians Malians Yes Yes Yes 7% 12% 5% No No No 93% 88% 95% Migrants’ use of Information & Among the migrants who declare using internet, the vast majority of them (70 percent on aver- Communication Technologies age) access it from home using a computer (Fig- The questionnaire included detailed questions ure 24). Fifty percent of them also declare using on migrants’ access to and use of Informa- a smartphone at home to access internet. Some tion and Communication Technologies (ICTs). striking differences appear across the three com- Those questions reveal that a large majority of munities: Ivorians and Malians access internet migrants have access to ICTs. On average, 50 using computers in Internet-cafes or at friends percent of migrants declare using a computer and family much more than Algerians. at least once in a day (Table 26). There appears Interviewees were also asked whether they to be some significant differences across the knew the website envoidargent.com, the French three groups, which may be linked to educa- national remittance price database published by tion and living standards: only 15 percent of the the Agence Française de Développement (AFD). Algerians declare never using a computer, while Most of them did not know of this website, (only this proportion increases 23 percent for the Ivo- seven Algerians, two Ivorians, and three Malians rians and 38 percent for Malians. The frequency had heard of it). Amongst the few migrants who of computer use confirms that Malian migrants knew about the website, 92 percent were not have more restricted access to computers: only satisfied with its services and declared that it has 28 percent of the Malian migrants use a com- had no impact on their way of remitting money. puter once in a day, this number is higher than 50 percent for Algerians and Ivorians. The same As shown by Table 27, almost all of the interviewees proportion of migrants in the three communities declare using a mobile phone and half of them have uses a computer at least once in a week (around a smartphone. Migrants seem to have quite intensive 20 percent). contacts with their family at home: 47.4 percent have phone calls every week, 17 percent every day, and 26 Table 26 displays the proportion of migrants who percent every month (see part one of Table 28). In use internet. It is worth noting that most—but addition to phone calls, a significant number of Alge- not all—of those who declare that they do not rians and Ivorians communicate by email and Skype use a computer also declare never using internet with their family back home (see part 2 of Table 28). (some of them access internet using smartphones, By contrast, Malians do not really use internet to for example). As much as 66% of Algerians and communicate with their family. 58 percent of the Ivorians declare using internet at least once in a day. Again, this proportion is Except for calls and text messages, 83 percent of lower for Malian migrants, who seem to have a migrants who have a smartphone use it to surf on less frequent access to the web, as only 40 per- the web, 25 percent to communicate via social cent declare using internet once in a day. Up to networks and 11 percent to send or receive pic- 30 percent of the Malian migrants declare never tures. They do not frequently download applica- using internet. tions, except the Algerians (10 percent). EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 31 Table 26: Use of New Information and Communication Technologies Algerians Ivorians Malians Total Do you—or another member of your household—use a computer? (in % of the total) . . . Never 15.38 22.97 37.90 24.53 . . . At least once in a day 57.05 52.03 28.23 46.96 . . . At least once in a week 20.51 19.59 21.77 20.56 . . . At least once in a month 3.85 4.05 6.45 4.67 . . . Less than once in a month 1.92 1.35 5.65 2.80 . . . No answer 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.46 Number of observations 156 148 124 428 Do you—or another member of your household—use internet? (in % of the total) . . . Never 12.82 14.19 30.65 18.46 . . . At least once in a day(a) 67.31 58.11 40.32 56.31 . . . At least once in a week 15.38 20.95 18.55 18.22 . . . At least once in a month 1.92 5.41 4.03 3.74 . . . Less than once in a month 1.28 1.35 4.84 2.34 . . . No answer 1.28 0.00 1.62 0.93 Number of observations 156 148 124 428 (a) On average, 97.5 percent of the migrants who declare using a computer once in a day also declare using internet once in a day (with minor differences across communities). Figure 24: Where and using which device do migrants access internet? (as a percentage of the number of migrants who access internet). Multiple answers possible 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Computer, Smartphone Game console Other Family or Internet café Other free Other laptop, or or TV with friends public access tablet Internet computer access Algerians Ivorians Malians Total Note: The percentages relate to the total number of migrants in each group, who have access to the internet: 136 Algerians, 127 Ivorians, and 86 Malians, for a total of 349 migrants. 32 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Table 27: Use of mobile phone Algerians Ivorians Malians Total % % % % Use of mobile phone 99.3 99.3 99.2 99.3 Use of a smartphone 60.4 52.0 51.6 54.9 Smartphone use* To call and send/receive texts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 To have access to internet 93.6 75.6 78.1 83.4 To download music, games, videos 4.3 20.5 25.0 15.3 ... To receive/send photos 14.0 11.5 7.8 11.5 To connect to social networks 20.4 35.9 20.3 25.5 To use diverse applications 9.7 3.8 3.1 6.0 To pay for goods and services 0.0 9.0 3.1 3.8 * Amongst the 428 interviewees, 235 have a smartphone. Table 28: Frequency of phone calls with family living in the country of origin and use email or Skype to communicate Algerians Ivorians Malians Total % % % % Frequency of phone calls with family living in the country of origin No contact 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.9 Every day 11.0 13.4 27.4 16.6 Every week 48.4 46.3 47.6 47.4 Every month 23.2 30.9 23.4 25.9 Every quarter 2.6 4.0 0.8 2.6 Every six months 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.70 Every year 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 Other 7.7 2.0 0.8 3.7 Not pertinent (no family back home) 3.9 0.7 0.0 1.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Use of emails or skype with family living in the country of origin Send emails but don’t use Skype 3.4 8.8 2.4 5.0 Use Skype but don’t send emails 18.2 6.8 6.5 10.7 Send emails and use Skype 41.2 26.3 5.7 25.5 No emails no Skype 35.1 57.4 84.5 57.5 Missing 2.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 Conclusions and areas for future actions T he results of the survey undertaken in Montreuil confirm the pertinence of the analy- sis of the socio-economic profile of migrants as is that, on average, 85 percent of individuals sur- veyed have access to one or more bank accounts, with a non-negligible share of migrants (slightly well as the related patterns of financial inclusion more than 20 percent) having more than one for a better understanding of their remittance account. For more recent immigrants access is behavior. more difficult, as for more recent immigrants— like Ivorians—close to one third do not have The three selected groups of migrants—­Algerians, access to a bank account due to lack of required Malians and Ivorians—are well represented in documentation. Montreuil’s migrant population. France is also chosen by a majority of migrants from these three Overall, the survey confirms the importance of the countries as their destination country. The survey remittance flows, in terms of amounts, frequency, illustrates the diversity of socio-economic profiles and needs in the country of origin. Remittance of the three groups and how this diversity impacts flows represent an average of one month’s salary on remittance behavior. per year for Ivorians and Algerian migrants and 1.6 for Malians. With the exception of Algerians, Such diversity has several dimensions. Algerian funds are remitted every month, and are mostly and Malian immigrants are on average longer- destined to cover subsistence expenses at the term immigrants than Ivorians; Algerians are on receiving end. average more educated and earn slightly higher incomes than the two other groups (in particu- Against this simplified picture, it clearly appears lar the Malians), even though those differences that the socio-economic characteristics high- appear to be minimal and not strongly corre- lighted by the survey are useful to explain remit- lated with education patterns. Size of families tance patterns: in particular, the need to support is larger for Malians (including in the country of families back home seems to be one of the most origin) than for the other groups—they have on relevant. Indeed, Malian migrants tend to remit average 8.2 relatives (six residing in Mali) unlike more money than the other groups, and more fre- 6.3 (3.8 residing respectively in Côte d’Ivoire or quently, as they tend to have bigger families back Algeria) for the Ivorian and Algerian migrants. As home, with immediate subsistence needs. Remit- much as 89 percent of the Algerian migrants live tance flows do not appear to be linearly corre- with their children in France, 68 percent of Ivo- lated with income—Algerian migrants in Montreuil rians, and only 33 percent of Malians. A total of are on average wealthier than Malian and Ivorian 66 percent of Malian migrants have their children migrants, but remit less, on average, than Mali- in Mali (among them, 62 percent with three or ans. Algerians migrants are found to mostly remit more children). money to buy durable goods or to invest. The duration of stay in France does not seem either to The survey also sheds light on the level of finan- be a strong determinant, as it does not alter the cial inclusion of the three target groups, which intensity of the links migrants have with those left usefully complements the analysis of socio-­ behind, in particular if one takes the example of economic characteristics. The most striking result the Malians.  33 34 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 Remittance channels are also radically differ- conditions offered by different types of remit- ent among the three communities. Algerian and tance providers. Related to this need, it appears Malian migrants rely to a large extent on friends, that financial education actions could also greatly family and other intermediaries to carry cash back help in educating migrants about the real costs of home. This pattern seems to be influenced by transfers, which do not only include the cost paid factors other than the real cost of transfers. For a to the provider on the sending side (in addition majority of surveyed migrants from the Algerian to any hidden costs related to the exchange rate, and Malian groups, easiness, convenience, and etc.) , but any costs on the receiving side, includ- the high perceived cost of regulated remittance ing costs incurred to receive the money (time service providers all seem determinant factors in spent to collect the money, travel costs, waiting the choice of unregulated channels. In reality, this time to collect the money at destination, money choice has its roots in factors such as lack of trust lost, hidden costs charged by intermediaries, etc.). by Algerians in their banking sector, the existence Taking into account the fact that for two of the of a black market for foreign currency in Algeria, three groups money is sent monthly, it would also or the existence of strong community networks in be beneficial to focus on how to reduce the total the Malian case. Those factors do not seem to be cost per year by better planning the remittance pertinent for Ivorians, who appear to be less orga- periodicity. nized as a community than Malians, taking into account that their immigration is more recent. As The inclusion of questions related to the knowl- a result, they overwhelmingly use MTOs to remit edge and usage of new information and commu- funds. nication technologies allows to build on the fact that a great majority of the inquired actually use Beyond sociological factors or factors related to ICT and this could be a powerful vehicle for both lack of appropriate financial infrastructure in the initiatives promoting transparency and promoting destination countries, a lack of transparency with services built on those new technologies. regard to the real costs of transfers also appears to be determinant. In fact, the results of the sur- Secondly, as the survey has illustrated, there are vey clearly show that migrants have distorted several factors which encourage the use of cash perceptions of the real transaction costs and in remittance flows. Beyond considerations about overall service conditions. This in addition may the factors impacting on the choice of the most be amplified by the context of lack of regulations efficient channels, it would also be important to promoting total transparency, as well as lack of consider the differentiated impact on financial voluntary initiatives from the private sector. In inclusion at the receiving end, which is deter- the face of this, it is indeed unlikely that migrants mined by the selected remittance channel. This is choose their remittance channel on the basis of especially relevant for the three selected groups, the real costs. as financial inclusion rates are very low in Western Africa, and also, albeit to a lesser extent, in Alge- The results of the survey shed light on four main ria. This would also allow to connect remittance promising avenues for actions to be under- issues to broader economic development issues. taken in the framework of Project Greenback 2.0 in Montreuil and that would deserve further Thirdly, as the survey has also highlighted the investigation. issue of lack of appropriate financial infrastruc- ture in the destination countries, it would be Firstly, there is a blatant need for more transpar- useful to further investigate how this specifi- ency in the market. This would allow for a bet- cally impacts on the choice of remittance chan- ter understanding of all the various elements of nels in particular, but also more broadly on all the cost, and also for a better comparison of the the dimensions of remittance behavior. As the CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS 35 Malian example illustrates, remittance channels further explored maybe with the help of rel- have mostly remained stable over time or have evant partners. even switched from unregulated to regulated providers, it would be interesting to investigate Activities carried out by Project Greenback 2.0 how various factors in Mali (including the exis- could consider all of the three proposed dimen- tence of adequate financial infrastructure, but sions, crystalizing efforts directed both at the also socio-economic factors such as the lack demand and the supply sides, following a com- of financial education) may influence remit- prehensive approach, in close consultation and tance patterns from France to Mali. Taking into synergy with the relevant public authorities and account the strong links between Montreuil potential partners. and certain villages in Mali, this route could be Annex—A methodological note on the survey design and the fieldwork The questionnaire • Section E: Financial inclusion (savings behavior, use of bank services and bank account, access The research presented in this report was under- to credit and microfinance); taken following the methodology developed by • Section F: NICT use; the World Bank in collaboration with FIERI for the Greenback 2.0 Turin Survey.25 The questionnaire • Section G: Remittances (intensity, frequency, however was adapted to the French context and operators, cost, direction and use) and received the targeted groups (Algerians, Malians, and Ivori- remittances; ans). For example, some of the response modules • Section H: Occupation (occupation status, related to access to financial services were slightly type of job, productive sector, type of work modified to take into account specificities of the contract); French banking system, as well as those related to • Section I: Legal status (entry documents and the marital status of migrants (some Malian and residence permits at arrival and at time of Ivorian migrants being potentially polygamous). survey); Moreover, a new section on Information and Com- munication Technologies (ICT) was added. • Section J: Impact of the economic crisis (change in remittances and income since 2008) The structure of the questionnaire is as follows: • Section K: Post interview comments • Section A: Filter questions The structure of the questionnaire was designed • To be in France since at least one year; so as to (1) make sure that the interviewee • To be aged 18 to 65 years-old; belongs to the target population through four filter questions and (2) to address each specific • To reside in Montreuil (or in some neighbor- section—demography, income and earnings, finan- ing cities); cial inclusion, ICT, remittances, job and occupa- • To earn an income (whatever its source); tion, legal status—in a logical sequence for the • To have sent remittances at least one over interviewee. The questionnaire was intended for the last 12 months; face-to-face interviews lasting around 20–30 min- utes each and administered by trained interview- • Section B: Personal information (sex, age, citi- ers in French. zenship at birth and current citizenship, marital status, religion, education, training); Training of interviewers • Section C: Information on household and other family members (place of residence, relation- The fieldwork team composed of 15 qualified ship to the migrant, sex, age); interviewers supervised by the DIAL research team in charge of the project. As a preliminary • Section D: Individual and household incomes; phase to the fieldwork, the interviewers attended a specific training on the project objectives and on the overall structure and logics of the sur- 25 See Greenback 2.0 (2014), Migrants’ Remittances from Italy: Interna- vey, on the specific content of each question of tional remittances and access to financial services for migrants in Turin, the World Bank, 48 p. the questionnaire, and on the strategies for the 36 ANNEX—A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE ON THE SURVEY DESIGN AND THE FIELDWORK 37 sample definition and the interview process. Dur- Units from this initial representative sample ing the training session, a draft of the question- served as “seeds” for an additional “respondent naire was given to the interviewers along with the driven sampling” (RDS), which is a variant of related documentation for the fieldwork: standard snowballing techniques where each surveyed individual is asked to provide a fixed • A leaflet on the project to be distributed to number of additional migrants to be contacted interviewed migrants; by interviewers. Within the RDS procedure, initial • A preliminary list of entry points and key infor- respondents are given incentives to recruit other mants of the three groups; interviewees themselves. The process primarily relies on a “dual incentive system,” which consists • A guide (20 pages) to support interview- of a primary reward for being interviewed and a ers during the fieldwork phase, with practical secondary reward for recruiting others. Secondly, insights on interviewing and data collection it can also be a way to recruit individuals who may techniques and with a detailed description of not respond to material incentives but are sensi- each section of the questionnaire, to reduce tive to non-material prestige or glow of helping problems of interpretation and formulation; a peer. Thirdly, subjects are not asked to identify • Privacy statements to be signed by migrants to their peers to the interviewer, but to recruit them guarantee the anonymity of the interview; into the study, thereby getting around the privacy • Follow-up forms through which interviewers concerns of snowballing. Finally, the problem of collected contacts information (name, tele- recruiting only the most cooperative subjects is phone number and/or email addresses) of reduced by combining primary and secondary migrants interested in taking part in the activi- incentives as recruiters may exert “social pres- ties of Project Greenback 2.0; sure” in order to obtain the secondary reward. • Personal access to the online platform Survey To summarize, concrete implementation of the Monkey, for the registration of questionnaire procedure was as follows: data; and, 1. Identification of significant and representative • USB keys to be offered to the interviewed “centers,” and key informants for the target migrants as an incentive/reward for their groups; participation. 2. Recruitment of a random and representative Interviewers were trained on the most effective sample of “seeds,” i.e. first respondents. Seeds ways to convince migrants to complete the entire received a compensation for participating in questionnaire, on how to offer an incentive and the survey; how to obtain consent to the use of sensitive data 3. Seeds were incentivized to “recruit” new par- (privacy statement). ticipants and promised a reward for each peer recruited; Sampling strategy 4. All new recruits that came to be surveyed The implemented sampling procedure was received similar “dual incentives”; and, derived from a combination of two standard 5. Sampling ended either when the targeted procedures in migrants’ surveys, namely the population was saturated or when minimum “center sampling technique” (Biao et al., 2011) sample size was reached and sample composi- and “respondent driven sampling” (Heckathorn, tion was stable. 1997). The “center sampling technique” consisted in primarily identifying “centers” or aggregation centers in Montreuil, gathering large numbers and Fieldwork and feedback diversified types of migrants, and potential key The survey was conducted from March, 31st to informants within them. Within each aggregation May, 19th 2014. It was carried out by a team of center, interviewers were asked to randomly get in 15 interviewers, divided in three groups, each contact with migrants. one focusing on a targeted migrant group and 38 GREENBACK 2.0 Montreuil Report 2015 supervised by a member of the DIAL research Yet, this specific snowballing technique proved coordination team. This subdivision aimed at quite unsuccessful, because most of the time the improving and optimizing communication and surveyed migrants refused to provide any con- coordination between them at each “center” and tact, and because the USB key was perceived as a avoiding overlapping. Each interviewer was asked mere reward for participating to the survey rather to send a daily report registering the number of than a real incentive to further recruit additional contacts, the selected key informants, and the participants. As a result, most of the interviews number of completed interviews. A biweekly or were conducted thanks to pure random sampling weekly meeting gathering all interviewers was at the entry points. organized with the supervision team in Montreuil in order to debrief and solve specific issues, par- One third of the interviews were conducted in a ticularly concerning the way to convince migrants cafe, one third in a public space (inside or out- to share information with regard to the places side), and one third at the interviewee’s home. where migrants were more or less reluctant to Even if the interviewers did not manage to survey answer the survey, but also to adjust the sample some specific migrant populations, this quasi- composition when necessary. pure random sampling finally achieved reasonable representativeness of the sample. Additional con- Each interviewers’ group was given a detailed sistency of the final sample can be attributed to a map of Montreuil divided by district and indi- good allocation of timing and hours of fieldwork cating each migrant group concentration areas between weekdays and weekends. on the basis of the census, and an initial list of entry points in each targeted district. To get as The interviewees encountered particular difficul- representative a sample as possible in terms of ties during the fieldwork among which: (i) the group and individual migrant characteristics, their stronger reluctance of women from all groups to number was significant and their characteristics be part of the survey, mostly due to the language diverse: work places, entertainment locations, barrier or their perception of having an inferior care and social services, public offices, parks, position within the household; (ii) the eligibility religious centers, “foyers” (workers’ hostels), criteria for the Algerian group, which proved to Hometown Associations offices, as well as banks, be much too restrictive due to the irregularity of post offices, and MTOs locations. The full range remittances or the prevalence of regular transfers of locations was selected in order to capture the at retirement age; (iii) the relatively smaller size variety of remittance behaviors for the specific and geographic dispersion of the Ivorian group; objective of this survey. The list was yet con- and, (iv) the strong reluctance of the Malian group stantly updated by the interviewers themselves to be interviewed due to the recurrence of surveys and then communicated to other groups. Inter- in the City of Montreuil and the recent war in the viewers had to select five aggregation centers/ country. Therefore, the survey area was somewhat entry points within which they were to randomly enlarged to neighboring municipalities of the identify four key informants or “seeds.” To ensure Seine-Saint-Denis region, especially for the Ivorian representativeness, interviewers were additionally group. Besides, interviewers sometimes found it asked to balance migrant seeds’ profiles in terms easier to conduct interviews at workplaces within of gender, age, duration of stay, and professional Paris for migrants living in Montreuil. These field- occupation. Each seed was then allowed to pro- work constraints should be kept in mind to further vide a maximum number of four peer contacts to assess the representativeness of the sample with be surveyed and further turned into new seeds to respect to some characteristics such as gender, continue the RDS process. age, and the duration of stay. ANNEX—A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE ON THE SURVEY DESIGN AND THE FIELDWORK 39 Data entry, cleaning, report inconsistencies during the interview. Sec- ondly, the entered data was uploaded regularly and analysis to an online survey tool that allowed the supervi- Interviews were conducted through Computer sion team to check the structure of the sample Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI), i.e. using in real time and make adjustments if needed. digital questionnaires that were administered At the end of the survey, the whole dataset was face-to-face and entered simultaneously. This clean and could immediately be exported and procedure proved efficient to minimize entry processed by the research team, using STATA as errors, due to the well-designed software that statistical software to produce descriptive statis- allowed to pre-program filters and warnings and tics and data analysis. Migrants’ Remittances from France Findings of a survey on migrants’ financial needs and remittance behavior in Montreuil Cover photo: courtesy of iStock.com