The World Bank provides annual estimates of remittances flows globally, based on national balance of payment statistics produced by central Banks and compiled by the IMF. (See definitions of the two main remittances components above that give examples of what is included and what is not [Plaza and Ratha, 2017: 65-78]). Data cover remittances inflows into and outflows from countries. The latter are less prominent in the migration and development debates but can be an indication of significant immigrant populations in a country, especially if they exceed remittances inflows.

Additionally, the World Bank also publishes estimates on bilateral remittance flows. The basis for bilateral remittances estimates are weighted migrant stock data, the weighted income of migrants based on the per capita income in the country of destination, and the weighted income in the origin country of the migrant (Ratha and Shaw, 2007: 43). 

The World Bank also produces estimates of remittance transaction costs on a quarterly basis. These are “average transaction costs of sending remittances to a specific country” and are computed as “the simple average of the total transaction cost in percentage for sending USD 200, charged by each single remittance service provider (RSP) included in the Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) database to a specific country”. World Bank researchers derive these estimates by either undertaking actual transactions themselves to obtain prices, or by sending inquiries on the transfer costs to a number of banks and money transfer operators (World Bank, n.d.). 

The World Bank’s KNOMAD (The Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development, active from 2013 until 2024), launched the International Working Group on Improving Data on Remittances (RemitStat) in collaboration with over 45 countries where remittances provide a financial lifeline, as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), UN, OECD, and Eurostat. The Working Group aims to monitor the implementation of remittance data compilation guidelines, improve the timeliness and comparability of data and improve international cooperation in remittance data collection and dissemination (ibid). The Working Group assigned its six thematic groups (high-frequency data on remittance flows; remittance channels and instruments; bilateral remittance flows; types of senders and recipients; definition and data compilation guidelines (to address misclassification, improve comparability over time and across countries); and estimation of unregulated flows) to compile recommendations on the challenges faced within remittance data collection. The groups researched their topics and conducted surveys to guide the future efforts of the Working Group. Learn more about their progress here.

From 2007 to 2017, the Financing Facility for Remittances (FFR) of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) published data and statistics on remittances through its series of Sending Money Home reports based on information from Central Banks, the IMF, and the World Bank RPW database, among others. The reports cover central issues affecting remittances from both a global and regional perspective and provide comparative indicators to measure the importance of remittances among regions and subregions.

RemitSCOPE is an online tool by IFAD's FFR which provides regional, subregional and country-level data and remittance market analyses. It aims to address the fast-changing market realities in the remittance industry in order to help bring together the goals of remittance families, as clients, and the strategies of the private-sector service providers. RemitSCOPE provides market profiles for 54 countries in Africa and profiles for Latin America and Asia are scheduled to be published in 2024.

The UN Impact Capital for Development (UNCDF) Benchmarking Tool for Remittances shows and compares countries’ remittances data collection. It includes details on the granularity of data, use cases, methods and disaggregation. The dashboard presents the stakeholders responsible for collecting, analyzing and publishing remittance data, the type of remittance data collected, methodology and reasoning for the data collection.

The World Bank estimates are used to provide a large dataset covering most countries around the world. This allows the user to understand trends and the magnitude of transfers, comparing them to other flows such as Official Development Assistance (ODA). 

Specific, representative migration and remittances surveys can provide detailed, and reliable information at the national or local level (World Bank, 2011). This also includes commodity transfers, such as consumer items, that are not part of the official recordings but that can be significant, especially in South-South contexts (Melde and Schicklinski, 2011).

Due to the methodological challenges outlined below, the estimates are far from accurate (De Arcangelis et al., 2023; Alvarez et al., 2015; Brown et. al, 2014; World Bank, 2016; Plaza and Ratha, 2017; IMF, 2009; Fernandes et. al, 2023).

The balance of payments category of “compensation of employees”, as defined by the IMF, can potentially significantly overestimate migrant remittances if a country has a large UN and/or embassy presence, and hosts factories of transnational corporations employing large numbers of workers. These employees are counted as “non-residents” or migrants in the country, and all their salaries are recorded as remittances. It is thus not possible to ascertain whether the official IMF and World Bank figures are accurate for these countries or considerable overestimates due to embassy, UN and foreign companies’ staff salaries being counted as well (Alvarez et al., 2015). 

Statistically, migrants who reside in a country for at least 12 months cannot be distinguished from other residents who are not migrants as these statistics are based on residence and not migratory status (Alvarez et al., 2015: 43). In the second component of remittances – “personal transfers” – the IMF considers if a transfer is made across borders, regardless of the residency status, nationality or country of birth of a person, as this information is often not available. The receiver or sender of the money transfer may thus not only be a migrant but also a citizen with links to another country, for instance. Thus, remittances can be conflated with larger sums of money sent by private investors and diaspora members for business investments, property purchase and other financial transactions. This leads to the probable overestimation of transfers.

When comparing remittances estimates over time, it is important to note that the documented growth in remittances globally in recent years may have actually derived from changes in how remittances are measured, rather than actual increases in such financial flows (Ratha, 2003; World Bank, 2006; Clemens and McKenzie, 2014). Almost 80 per cent of the increase in recorded remittances during the period 1990—2010 may be accounted for by changes in measurement, and only a fifth may reflect changes due to higher numbers of international migrants and the incomes they are likely to be earning in destination countries (Clemens and McKenzie, 2014). In addition, both reporting of remittance transactions has been improved and migrants have increasingly used more formal payment methods as informal channels decreased as part of anti-money laundering measures (ibid.). 

It is also important to keep in mind that IMF and World Bank estimates focus on remittances transferred through official channels, such as banks. Not all small transactions by migrants conducted via money transfer operators (such as Western Union), post offices, mobile transfer companies (like M-Pesa in Kenya) are included in all the countries, neither are informal transfers (such as via friends, relatives or transport companies returning to the origin community), depending on the sources of data used by different central banks. As informal remittances that are not systematically included in balance of payments can be significant in volume and can account for 35 to 75 per cent of formal remittances, in particular in the context of South-South corridors, the official figures are likely to  underreport remittances (Irving et al., 2010; World Bank, 2011; Fernandes et. al, 2023). Due to the largely unknown scope of informal transfers, some countries, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa, do not report remittances figures to the IMF in their balance of payments. Data on remittances also vary from country to country due to differences in the availability of data, national legislative and policy frameworks, using citizenship instead of residency status in the definition, and for the simplification of processing the data (Irving et al., 2010; World Bank, 2011; Plaza and Ratha, 2017).

Bilateral remittance estimates are prone to the limitations of data on migrant stocks described here. The calculation is based on the gross national income (GNI) per capita in the origin country of the migrant and thus cannot account for GNI being higher there as the assumption is that migrants move to countries with higher incomes (Ratha and Shaw, 2007). The World Bank further acknowledges issues around not being able to attribute a transfer to a specific country, especially when passed through an international bank (Ratha and Shaw, 2007). It is thus important to underline that these are calculated estimates and do not represent accurate figures (Alvarez et al., 2015).

The testing of remittance channels through fictitious transfers of money by World Bank analysts entails significant limitations as well. Only a few corridors are monitored. Differences in transaction costs based on the amount sent, with the higher amounts likely to cost less to send, distorts the  representativeness of relevant data. Costs may also change quickly, meaning the reported transaction costs rapidly become outdated (Alvarez et al., 2015). Nonetheless, estimates of transaction costs can help to monitor progress towards the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of reducing sending costs to 3 per cent of the amount remitted.