Could we not equate remittances with working at home (at the PC -- in a poor country) for an employer in a rich country (remittances equivalent to remote, Indian style, tele-service banks?).
If a person in a poor country contrives to move to a rich country where capital investment will make his work more productive, how does that add up to moral hazard for the poor country? The world thereby enjoys higher output and the poor country enjoys higher living standards -- albeit via REMOTE increase in productivity of its population?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment