Remittances in the Republic of Georgia: Correlates, Economic Impact, and Social Capital Formation


The economic impact of remittances on migrant-sending countries has been a subject of debate in the scholarly literature on migration. We consider the topic using a household-level approach. We use a new survey, “Georgia on the Move,” to examine migrant-level, household-level, and contextual variables associated with the probability that a household in the Republic of Georgia receives remittances. We then apply propensity score matching to estimate how remittances affect particular types of household expenditures, savings, labor supply, health, and other measures of well-being. Separate analysis of the subsample of households with a migrant currently abroad distinguishes the effects of remittances from the effects of migration as such. In Georgia, remittances improve household economic well-being without, for the most part, producing the negative consequences often suggested in the literature. We find evidence for an important aspect that has not been widely discussed in prior studies: remittances foster the formation of social capital by increasing the amount of money that households give as gifts to other households.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    For more detailed descriptions of Georgia’s migration patterns since 1991, see International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2008) and Tchaidze and Torosyan (2009).

  2. 2.

    The transfer data can be found online ( See also Table S1 in Online Resource 1 for more details.

  3. 3.

    NBG specialists told us most remittances are transferred via the NBG because these transfers are reliable, flexible, quick, and cheap, and remittances are not taxed or questioned.

  4. 4.

    For more-detailed summaries of the debate over the economic effects of remittances, see Taylor (1999), Cohen (2005), Massey et al. (2005), Rapoport and Docquier (2005), de Haas (2010), and Garip (2012).

  5. 5.

    Precincts in heavily militarized zones, remote mountainous areas, territories occupied by Russian forces, those with fewer than 50 voters, and those with more than 50 % non-Georgian speakers were excluded at the PSU stage for practical reasons. Overall, 7.7 % of voting precincts containing 3.7 % of voters were excluded.

  6. 6.

    Because the GOTM captures remittances paid by households that left Georgia entirely, the absence of such households in the sample is not a problem for the analysis of the effects of remittances among Georgia-resident households.

  7. 7.

    Data on any remittance receipt are missing for only 5 % of households.

  8. 8.

    Frequency of contact may be endogenous if transferring remittances provides occasions for contact. However, most remittances are sent via bank transfer. Thus, our eight-category measure of frequency of contact is a reasonable proxy for the strength of the ties between the Georgia-resident household and migrant group.

  9. 9.

    This “ignorability” assumption stipulates that no unobservable variables affecting whether a household receives remittances influence the outcomes that we examine. Such unobservable variables would bias our estimates of remittance effects in one direction or the other, depending on how they affect remittance receipt and the outcomes. However, this concern is mitigated by the rich set of covariates and good fit of our remittance receipt models.

  10. 10.

    We estimate all models using Stata 11.0. For detailed introductions to propensity score matching, see Smith (1997) and Morgan (2001). For a technical treatment of kernel matching and details about estimation, see Becker and Ichino (2002).

  11. 11.

    Households may have spent money on categories not covered in the survey, so our measures of total budget and total expenditures contain errors and underestimate the true totals. The expenditure data may be error prone because of difficulties remembering or reluctance to reveal high levels of expenditures. However, we do not think that these measurement errors vary systematically by household remittance status, so we doubt that they bias our findings.

  12. 12.

    Other age ranges for school participation that we tested yielded the same results.

  13. 13.

    We adjust household earnings for household size in the standard fashion by dividing total household earnings by the square root of household size. Earnings data were missing for at least one member in 18.0 % of households. We assigned a value of zero to those individuals. Additional analyses on households with complete data revealed no differences in results.

  14. 14.

    We mean-substitute missing values on religiosity and (for absent migrants) duration abroad. We exclude six households with missing data on other variables. The GOTM sample means on some variables can be compared with official data found online (

  15. 15.

    We define unemployment as not working but looking for work. Parallel analyses that included those not working and not looking among the unemployed yielded the same results.

  16. 16.

    In optimizing our specifications for this model and the model estimated on the sample of absent-migrant households, we omit most nonsignificant covariates, although we retain some to satisfy the balancing condition necessary for the estimation of propensity scores.

  17. 17.

    We tested for variation in the “elderly” effect by the presence of children and found no significant interaction.

  18. 18.

    Households with a return migrant are also significantly more likely to get remittances, but we had to remove this variable to satisfy the balancing property necessary for the propensity score analysis.

  19. 19.

    Because debt payments are a separate expenditure category, it is unlikely that transfers to other households are capturing repayment of money borrowed to pay the costs of migration.


  1. Acosta, P., Calderon, C., Fajnzylber, P., & Lopez, H. (2008). What is the impact of international remittances on poverty and inequality in Latin America? World Development, 36, 89–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams, R. H. (1989). Worker remittances and inequality in rural Egypt. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38, 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Adelman, I., & Taylor, J. E. (1992). Is structural adjustment with a human face possible? The case of Mexico. Journal of Development Studies, 26, 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Pozo, S. (2006). Migration, remittances and male and female employment patterns. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 96, 222–226.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Pozo, S. (2011a). New evidence on the role of remittances on healthcare expenditures by Mexican households. Review of Economics of the Household, 9, 69–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Pozo, S. (2011b). Remittances and income smoothing. American Economic Review, 101, 582–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Arguillas, M. J. B., & Williams, L. (2010). The impact of parents’ overseas employment on educational outcomes of Filipino children. International Migration Review, 44, 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Badurashvili, I. (2004, April). Determinants and consequences of irregular migration in a society under transition. The case of Georgia, Caucasus. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Boston, MA. Retrieved from

  9. Becker, S., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, 2, 358–377.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Borraz, F. (2005). Assessing the impact of remittances on schooling: The Mexican experience. Global Economy Journal, 5, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chappell, L., Angelescu-Naqvi, R., Mavrotas, G., & Sriskandarajah, D. (2010). Development on the move: Measuring and optimising migration’s economic and social impacts. London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, J. H. (2005). Remittance outcomes and migration: Theoretical contests, real opportunities. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40, 88–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Haas, H. (2010). Migration and development: A theoretical perspective. International Migration Review, 44, 227–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de la Brière, B., Sadoulet, E., de Janvry, A., & Lambert, S. (2002). The roles of destination, gender, and household composition in explaining remittances: An analysis for the Dominican Sierra. Journal of Development Economics, 68, 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Durand, J., Kandel, W., Parrado, E. A., & Massey, D. S. (1996a). International migration and development in Mexican communities. Demography, 33, 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Durand, J., Parrado, E. A., & Massey, D. S. (1996b). Migradollars and development: A reconsideration of the Mexican case. International Migration Review, 30, 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garip, F. (2008). Social capital and migration: How do similar resources lead to divergent outcomes? Demography, 45, 591–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Garip, F. (2012). Repeat migration and remittances as mechanisms of wealth inequality in 119 communities from the Mexican Migration Project data. Demography, 49, 1335–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2008). Review of migration management in Georgia. Geneva, Switzerland: IOM. Retrieved from

  20. Kanaiaupuni, S. M., & Donato, K. M. (1999). Migradollars and mortality: The effects of migration on infant survival in Mexico. Demography, 36, 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koc, I., & Onan, I. (2004). International migrants’ remittances and welfare status of the left-behind families in Turkey. International Migration Review, 38, 78–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Korobkov, A. V. (2007). Migration trends in central Eurasia: Politics versus economics. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 40, 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lipton, M. (1980). Migration from the rural areas of poor countries: The impact on rural productivity and income distribution. World Development, 8, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lu, Y., & Treiman, D. J. (2011). Migration, remittances, and educational stratification among blacks in apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa. Social Forces, 89, 1119–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lucas, R. E. B., & Stark, O. (1985). Motivations to remit: Evidence from Botswana. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 901–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mansoor, A., & Quillin, B. (Eds.). (2007). Migration and remittances: Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaochi, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (2005). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Massey, D. S., & Parrado, E. (1994). Migradollars: The remittances and savings of Mexican migrants to the USA. Population Research and Policy Review, 13, 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Morgan, S. (2001). Counterfactuals, casual effect heterogeneity, and the Catholic school effect on learning. Sociology of Education, 74, 341–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Murphy, J., Baxter, R., Eyerman, J., Cunningham, D., & Kennet, J. (2004, May). A system for detecting interviewer falsification. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research 59th Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ.

  31. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. The American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1320–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rapoport, H., & Docquier, F. (2005). The economics of migrants’ remittances (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1531). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.

  33. Reichert, J. S. (1981). The migrant syndrome: Seasonal U.S. wage labor and rural development in central Mexico. Human Organization, 40, 56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rubenstein, H. (1992). Migration, development and remittances in rural Mexico. International Migration, 30, 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Seddon, D. (2004). South Asian remittances: Implications for development. Contemporary South Asia, 13, 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Semyonov, M., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2005). Labor migration, remittances and household income: A comparison between Filipino and Filipina overseas workers. International Migration Review, 39, 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Semyonov, M., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2008). Labor migration, remittances and economic well-being of households in the Philippines. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 619–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith, H. L. (1997). Matching with multiple controls to estimate treatment effects in observational studies. Sociological Methodology, 27, 325–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stark, O. (1991). The migration of labor. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stark, O. (1995). Altruism and beyond. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Stark, O., & Bloom, D. (1985). The new economics of labor migration. American Economic Review, 75, 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stark, O., Taylor, J. E., & Yitzhaki, S. (1986). Remittances and inequality. The Economic Journal, 96, 722–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Taylor, J. E. (1999). The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process. International Migration, 37, 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taylor, J. E., & Dyer, G. A. (2009). Migration and the sending economy: A disaggregated rural economy-wide analysis. Journal of Development Studies, 45, 966–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tchaidze, R., & Torosyan, K. (2009). Georgia on the move (Report by the CRRC/ISET team for the Development on the Move study commissioned by the GDN/IPPR). Tbilisi, Georgia: International School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Todaro, M. P. (1969). A model labor migration and urban underemployment in less developed countries. American Economic Review, 59, 138–148.

    Google Scholar 

  47. United Nations. (2009). International migration report 2006: A global assessment. Retrieved from

  48. Zachariah, K. C., Mathew, E. T., & Irudaya Rajan, S. (2001). Impact of migration on Kerala’s economy and society. International Migration, 39, 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors acknowledge the Global Development Network for funding the survey analyzed herein; the University of Delaware’s Title VIII Program for a grant that supported data analysis and writing; Robert Tchaidze, Eric Livny, Randy Filer, Vladimir Popov, Scott Radnitz, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions and input; and Sophie Shkirtladze and Maka Chitanava for research assistance. Earlier versions were presented at the University of Delaware Title VIII Conference (Sofia, Bulgaria, June 2010), the Population Association of America (Washington, DC, April 2011), the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (July 2011), and the Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, July 2011).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodore P. Gerber.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.


(PDF 302 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerber, T.P., Torosyan, K. Remittances in the Republic of Georgia: Correlates, Economic Impact, and Social Capital Formation. Demography 50, 1279–1301 (2013).

Download citation


  • International migration
  • Remittances
  • Economic well-being
  • Social capital