This report explores the actual and potential role of UK-based diasporas in development
and poverty reduction in their homelands. Included under the rubric ‘poverty reduction’
are conflict prevention, conflict reduction and post-conflict reconstruction, as these are all
central to poverty reduction in countries with diasporas which have a substantial
presence in the UK. Private remittances by individuals constitute the most sizeable and
tangible form of diaspora contribution to development and poverty reduction. However,
this report focuses on collective transfers of various kinds by diasporic associations for
development and/or welfare purposes, as well as upon broader forms of collective
support among diaspora non-governmental organisations, churches and other bodies,
such as social and political lobbying. The report also touches on commercial investments
in the homeland by diaspora members.
Diaspora are defined as populations of migrant origin who are scattered among two or
more destinations, between which there develop multifarious links involving flows and
exchanges of people and resources: between the homeland and destination countries,
and among destination countries. Currently much more than in the past, diasporas
include complex mixes of people who have arrived at different times, through different
channels, through different means, and with very different legal statuses. When divisions
in the country of origin are also taken into account, such diasporas can thus be highly
fissiparous, which can give rise to problems of coherence when mobilising for
development and other purposes.
Six UK-based diaspora groups are examined: Somalis, Nigerians, Ghanaians, Indians,
Sri Lankan Tamils, and Chinese. The cases represent African and Asian examples of
interest to DfID and encompass a range of conditions, from countries in or emerging
from conflict to more stable low income and lower middle income countries.
Despite originating from countries with diverse social, political, economic and cultural
backgrounds, the six diaspora groups reviewed reveal rather similar migration patterns.
Early arrivals of seamen and/or students formed a core from which the diaspora
expanded and consolidated. Migration for education and/or professional advancement
has played a large role, with students and professionals often making up a substantial
part of the early diaspora: often these are also political dissidents. Others migrated for
livelihood purposes, as labour migrants or business people. These forms of migration
often later transmute into family reunion as households form and become established.
From the later 1980s, asylum migration has formed a significant stream for all six cases.
The cases vary in terms of distribution in the UK: some have tended to form enclaves, to
differing degrees, while others tend not to be concentrated in particular locations,
although Greater London is the main site of residence for all six groups. The size of the
UK-based diaspora in each case relative to the home country population and the global
diaspora varies considerably.
Many governments of migrant-sending countries have recognised the potential of their
citizens abroad in recent years, and international development agencies are beginning to
do likewise. Migrants’ incentives to participate in home country development or
reconstruction depend on the extent to which they feel they have a stake in their home
nation-states as well as in the countries that host them. With such factors in mind, and in
partnership with developing countries and diasporas, DfID and other development
agencies could work towards:
2
• securing the rights of migrants
• cutting the cost of money transfers
• encouraging migrants to invest in community development initiatives in their
home countries, and, in particular, to engage with pro-poor drivers of change at
home.
• taking steps to give diasporas a more active voice in the development arena,
such as involving them in international fora to coordinate resource flows from
donors and from diasporas for development and reconstruction.
In addition to these general policies, the findings of the report strongly support the
following proposals made earlier by the African Foundation for Development (AFFORD):
• Acknowledge that the diaspora, as investors in, welfare providers to, and
knowledge communities about developing regions merit as serious an
engagement as the private sector with DfID and other government departments
with a development brief.
• Drawing UK-based diaspora groups into the formulation of Country Strategy or
Assistance Plans, Poverty Reduction Strategy Planning, and other instruments of
UK development policy.
• Making greater efforts to bridge the UK’s two parallel development and relief
efforts, one mainstream-led (DfID plus UK-based NGOs engaged in development
and relief) and the other diaspora-led. DfID might consider creating incentives
such as a partnership fund (akin to its Civil Society Challenge Fund) to
encourage ‘mainstream’ development and diaspora groups to engage
constructively with each other.
• The formation of a dedicated unit within DfID (along the lines of the Private
Sector Unit) to engage with UK-based diaspora groups, and to assess the
different strength, weaknesses and potential of different groups (and of sections
within particular diaspora groups).
Other policy lessons, positive and negative, drawn from the findings of the report include:
• Recognising diversity within diasporas
• Acknowledging migrant/diaspora source areas are not necessarily the most
poverty-prone, and identifying pro-poor drivers of change within them
• Taking account of ambivalent policy lessons
• Recognising and building on linkages across diasporas
• Fostering markets within and beyond the diaspora for homeland products and
services
• Connecting asylum-seekers/refugees with development initiatives
• Encouraging transfer of diaspora expertise
• Developing new partnership projects
• Working with different levels of homeland government
• Promoting coordination between diaspora and aid agency initiatives
• Participating actively in the UN Global Commission on International Migration
• Exploring constructive ‘conversation’ with the diaspora to realise their potential in
development, poverty reduction and peace building.
The latter is arguably the logical starting point, and DfID should actively explore
mechanisms towards this end.