1.2. TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF MIGRATION TO AND FROM
CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES

Elizabeth Thomas-Hope[1]

INTRODUCTION

Migration has become deeply embedded in the psyche of Caribbean peoples over the past century and a half. It has evolved as the main avenue for upward mobility through the accumulation of capital – financial and social. Thus the propensity for migration is high and there is a general responsiveness to the opportunities for moving whenever they occur. At times these opportunities have come from within the region itself or the wider circum-Caribbean region, as in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; in more recent times from North America and Europe.

The migration dynamic reflects the interplay of international, national and highly personal circumstances. Global changes affect the international economic order and the division of labour and, as a consequence, legislative controls and inducements to the movement of labour across selective national borders. At the national level, economic, social, demographic and political factors influence the variable access of people to economic rewards and social opportunities. But migration is not a passive reaction to internal ‘pushes’ and external ‘pulls’. Within this wider international and national context, migration is part of a dynamic set of negotiations at all levels. For whether ‘free’ movement or refugee, there is a selective process that operates at the interface of the needs of the immigration country on the one hand and the potential for migration in the emigration country on the other. Besides, these are complex and not solely determined by simple economic forces. Pressure, based on the social and political implications of the migration, is sometimes greater than the need for labour in the economy. Within the sending country, there are pressures from high propensity migrants to seek migration opportunities; yet their departure in large numbers is likely to create deficits in the reservoir of human resources with potential negative implications for national development. There are, therefore, a number of conflicts of interest within both receiving countries and sending countries at the national and local levels between the costs and benefits of migration.

The compromise between these conflicts in the receiving country is manifest in the immigration regulations and recruitment drives that emerge. The compromise in the sending countries is reflected in the system of obligations, responsibilities and expectations that the migrants and non-migrants establish. The sending country has a relatively poor negotiating position at the national level, even though, in many instances, the labour force and other recruits (such as students) are highly valuable at the destination. Only in the contract labour schemes has the Jamaican government, for example, been able to enforce a requirement of saving and foreign currency remittance. By and large the sending country has simply to accept the spontaneous benefits that accrue through migration. It is in this regard that policy should focus upon the development of mechanisms to channel the benefits into national productivity so that as much as possible value-added may be derived.
Types of Caribbean Migration

Caribbean migration reflects variations on the basis of the purpose for the movement –work, education, accompanying persons - combined with length of stay at the destination – long-term or short-term. It is difficult to establish rigid time-frames for what constitutes a long-stay migrant and there are many variations in all these migration activities that characterize the pattern of the overall movement. However, a classification would include the following general types of migration: long-stay residence (for work, study or as accompanying persons); short-stay (including contract labour/guest worker schemes); return migration.

A single migrant may engage in all three of these types of migration in his or her life-time and certainly a single household may have members engaged in any combination of types at the same time. Further, even migrations that are long-term do not necessarily reflect a total displacement of the migrants from their household and community but rather, the establishment of a transnational set of interactions and linkages that are associated with movements of people, money and goods and ideas in support of the expectations and obligations of the transnational household or family (Schiller et al, 1995; Thomas-Hope, 1986, 1988, 1992). The various types of migration are therefore incorporated into intra-regional, extra-regional and return migration, around which Caribbean migration trends and patterns are here discussed.

In addition, there is considerable circulation of people that is not recorded either in the censuses or in any systematic way through other types of migration statistics. It is an important form of mobility that includes legal, informal commercial activities of various kinds, as well as organized trafficking in drugs and people. This type of population movement is outside of the scope of the present paper so is not elaborated upon here. However, it is important to note that they are not only significant in their societal impact in both source and destination countries but that they are also part of the wider phenomenon of population movement, directly or indirectly associated with the international networks established by the formal migration process.

Data

Circularity in the pattern of movement and the complexity of who constitutes a migrant or what constitutes migration make the collection of, and consistency in the data difficult. The immigrant stock determined from population census statistics may record documented migrants involved in any one of these types of movement, though they principally record those that are long-stay residents.

Despite the difficulties in capturing all aspects of migration in official data, the CARICOM 1991 Census for Population and Housing (CCPHC) provides migration data for much of the region, excepting the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. There are also no intra-regional migration data for Haiti. Data for extra-regional movements are compiled by the respective destination countries. These data do not include those national groups that, due to their citizenship, require no visas for entry. For example, people from the French Antilles moving to France, British Commonwealth migrants to Britain, and Puerto Ricans to the United States.

INTRA-REGIONAL CARIBBEAN MIGRATION

On the basis of the 1991 CARICOM Census, the figure for the total migration stock or numbers of persons living in the region other than in their country of nationality, was 104,669. (The data excludes Jamaica, Cayman and the Turks and Caicos Islands). Of this total, Caribbean nationals accounted for the majority, other immigrants were chiefly from the United States and Canada, United Kingdom and India. For example, in Trinidad and Tobago, 25.5% of the non-national population were from outside the Caribbean. In the U.S. Virgin Islands, the non-Caribbean migrants accounted for 27.6% of the migrant stock, for the British Virgin Islands, the figure was 27.5% and Antigua 32.7%. In the Bahamas, less than a quarter of the migrant stock was comprised of Caribbean nationals, the greater proportion (76%) having come from outside the region, chiefly North America and Europe. (Table 1).

The Caribbean countries with the largest concentrations of immigrants are Trinidad & Tobago, with 35.4 % of the total stock of Caribbean migrants in the region, the U.S. Virgin Islands with 22.2 %; and Barbados with 12.3 %. Antigua and Barbuda with 7.9%; and the British Virgin Islands with 5.5 % (Table 2). It is evident that the U.S. Virgin Islands, the British Virgin Islands and even Antigua are strongly supported by a high immigrant population, representing a heavy reliance on a non-national labour force.

The Caribbean countries representing the major sources of intra-regional migrants are Grenada, St Vincent and Guyana. The rate of emigration (calculated from the numbers of emigrants relative to the total population) gives an indication of the impact upon the sending countries. The out-migration rate was 19.1 for Grenada, 15.1 for St. Vincent relative to their population (1990). Emigrants from Guyana were third in the rank of intra-regional migrants but this represented a rate of only 1.9 in relation to Guyana’s population, whereas the British Virgin Islands, contributing only 5,812 intra-regional migrants had an out-migration rate of 26.8. (Table 2).

With few exceptions, notably Antigua, the countries with the highest immigration rates are not those with the highest emigration rates, though it should be pointed out that the situation is highly dynamic. There are the possibilities of change in the migration pattern, depending upon any emerging foci of growth in any specific economic sector and the attendant need for an increased workforce of a particular type. An additional factor that underlines the migration dynamic is that any major environmental hazard could lead to out-migration. This is exemplified by the situation in Montserrat. The migration pattern changed dramatically in the second half of the 1990s due to the volcanic eruptions. In 1990, this island had an immigration rate of 13.7 and emigration rate of 18.6. Currently, although data are not available, it is known that the immigration has virtually ceased and the emigration rate has increased significantly.

Trends in the Movement – Direction and Timing

In the first three decades of the twentieth century there were significant movements from the Anglophone to the Hispanic Caribbean and the Netherlands Antilles. By mid-century, the intra-regional movements were largely to and from Anglophone countries as well as from Haiti to the Bahamas and the Dominican Republic.
Most of the current immigrant stock had migrated prior to 1980 and much even before 1970. This was usually associated with specific development projects or periods of peak economic growth based on a particular industry – for example oil in Trinidad, tourism in the U.S.Virgin Islands, the Bahamas and Cayman Islands. In these situations, a specific kind of labour force was required and immigration of the relevant groups encouraged or facilitated. The intra-regional movements have subsequently continued at a steady rate with no recent major peaks in movement.

Characteristics of the Migrants

Age and Sex. The age and sex distribution among intra-regional migrants reflects the varied reasons which conditioned their migration in the first place. As the nature of the migration streams will show, many of the major movements in the region had occurred prior to 1980, indicating relatively stable and therefore mature migrant population profiles. The distribution by sex also varies from one country to another, depending on the initial occupational selectivity of the migrants and there is no major gender imbalance in any of the populations (CCPHC, 1994).

Education. The educational level of immigrants are, on average, higher than both the population that they leave and that which they enter, reflecting the selective nature of the migration process. In most cases there are significantly higher proportions of non-nationals with tertiary education than is the case for nationals. For example, in Antigua 16.5% of the non-national population have tertiary (pre-university or university) qualifications; only 5.5% of the nationals do. In the Bahamas, the figure is 19.4% of the non-nationals, 7.9% of nationals; in Barbados, 54.6% of non-nationals and 8.7% of nationals; the British Virgin Islands 17.4% of non-nationals and 7.5% of nationals (CCPHC, 1994). The exception, that indicates the significance of this particular trend, is the U.S.Virgin Islands where the situation is reversed: 18.1% of the non-national population have tertiary level education whereas 27.8% of the nationals are in this position. The significance lies in the fact that the U.S.Virgin Islands have relied to lesser extent on the in-migration of a highly qualified workforce (as this is mainly provided by the national population), and more on a semi-skilled immigrant labour force. This reflects the higher level of development in those islands relative to the region in general. This is further indicated by the occupational profiles of the regional migrants.

Occupation. Migrants invariably establish or move into niche occupations in response to the opportunities afforded by the economic and social structure of the host country. The distribution and concentrations of immigrants in specific occupational categories thus reflect the history of the economic growth sectors that encouraged immigration.

In the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands, most non-nationals are involved in unskilled work. However, the second most significant category is professionals, followed by craft and service activities. This is a consequence of the thrust of the developments in tourism in which the migrants obtain work and indeed, have established a niche. Most of the non-nationals in Jamaica are in the professional (45.9%), managerial (16.3%) and technical (12.0%) categories. This is to large extent a replacement population for Jamaicans in these occupations who migrated to North America.(Table 3).

EXTRA-REGIONAL CARIBBEAN MIGRATION

The migrations to countries outside of the Caribbean region were dominated in the 1950s and 1960s by movements to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands from their former colonies. The decline in movements to the United Kingdom after 1962 was accompanied by a sharp increase in the movements to Canada and the United States. This was a trend coincidentally triggered by increased opportunities in the immigration legislation of Canada in 1962 and the United States while, at the same time, Britain started to restrict the entry of Commonwealth Caribbean migrants. Thereafter, North America became the major destination of British Caribbean migrants, streams that added to the already high volume of Puerto Ricans to the United States and that accompanied the increase in numbers from the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

Caribbean Migration to the United States of America

Trends in the Movements

The immigrant stock is chiefly composed of migrants from Cuba, the Dominican Republic the British Commonwealth Caribbean and Haiti that had largely occurred between 1962 and 1981. In the decade of the 1990s, the streams from these countries have also been very large, with the Dominican Republic ranking first in numbers of migrants, Cuba second and Jamaica third. Most Caribbean countries have been represented in the overall migration streams to the United States in the 1990s, in particular Trinidad & Tobago and Barbados. Even those countries with only small numbers of migrants, the numbers are sometimes quite significant in relation to the small populations of the Caribbean states (Table 4).

Refugee movements and guest worker schemes.

In addition to the regular visas issued to Caribbean migrants for long-stay residence in the United States for work and/or education, there have also been significant movements of refugees, principally from Cuba and Haiti. These persons become long-stay migrants. Similar streams will recur whenever events in the region, whether political or environmental, give rise to refugee movements.

There have also been large numbers of short-stay migrants from the region, chiefly workers entering on contract for seasonal agricultural work or hotel services. Mexicans vastly outnumber those from the Caribbean, but the movement has, nevertheless, been important for the countries involved. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 temporary workers (all male) entered the United States annually from the Caribbean (excluding Puerto Rico) in the 1980s on the guest worker scheme, chiefly to harvest sugar cane in Florida (McCoy and Wood, 1982). From Jamaica alone, the number each year from 1986 to 1990 ranged from 10,754 to 13,333 (data from the Government of Jamaica, Ministry of Labour, 1991). However, in the 1997 fiscal year the number of guest worker contracts to the United States was much reduced. There were only 137 agricultural contracts and 2,009 non-agricultural. Some 63% of these were issued to Jamaicans and 25% to nationals of the Dominican Republic (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997).

Characteristics of the Migrants
Age and Sex. The age and sex profile of the immigrant stock in 1990 demonstrated the predominance of persons in the 20 to 44 age group, except in the case of the Cuban migrants, for which the population was relatively old, with 56.4% aged 45 and over and only 34.5 % in the 25-34 age band. This was accounted for by the large waves of migration prior to 1980. By contrast, the 20-44 age-group accounts for 53.8% of the British Commonwealth Caribbean immigrant stock, 59.1% of the Dominican Republic and 60,6% of the Haitian (CCPH, 1994; ECLAC, 2000).

Education. There is a generally high level of education among Caribbean migrants to the United States. In 1990, 60.8% of those from the British Commonwealth Caribbean had been to a tertiary institution and a further 25.2% were high school graduates (CCPHS, 1994). Similar categories are not available for migrants from Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti, but data for number of years of formal education show 54.1 % of the Cubans, 41.8% of the Dominicans and 57.6% of the Haitians over the age of 20, had completed 12 or more years of schooling (ECLAC, 2000). There was a very large discrepancy in the education of the average Caribbean emigrant as compared to the average for the national populations, as observed earlier, due to the highly selective nature of the migrations.

Occupation. Caribbean migrants in the US in 1990 were predominantly employed in the private sector, principally in service industries and sales. The second largest category of employed Cubans, Dominicans and Haitians was in commerce, followed by manufacturing (ECLAC, 2000). There were also significant numbers of Cubans in construction. Among British Commonwealth Caribbean migrants, many were also in technical and administrative jobs, as well as managerial and professional. (CCPHS, 1994). The immigration stream in 1997 shows that this occupational pattern was largely maintained throughout the 1990s. (Table 5).

Caribbean Migration to Canada

Trends in the Movement

British Commonwealth Caribbean migrants in Canada, as already indicated, arrived in the period 1960-1881, when their entry was permitted following changes in Canadian immigration policy regarding the Caribbean as a desirable source of migrants. Even then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, some 11-13% of the immigrants were on short-term (one year) visas, chiefly of females, for work in the domestic services and nursing. The great majority were from Jamaica, a trend that continued through the 1990s. Trinidad & Tobago and Haiti ranked second and third in terms of numbers and although all Caribbean countries of the region participated in the movement to Canada most were very small streams, in some cases only a few individuals each year. (Table 6). These were virtually all long-stay migrants but there have been small numbers each year of males from Jamaica as seasonal guest works, chiefly working on fruit farms in the Province of Ontario.

Characteristics of the Migrants

Age and Sex. The age and sex of Caribbean immigrant stock in Canada (1981) showed a concentration in the 25-29 age cohort for all countries. Of the total Jamaica immigrant population, 59.3% were in this age group; Trinidad & Tobago, 67.8%; Barbados, 74%; Haiti, 64.2%. In the case of Jamaica, there was a broader age band with significant numbers also in the younger groups (ECLAC, 2000). The figure fell off significantly for the 60 and over age category, with 5.1% of the migrants from Jamaica, 3.5% of those form Trinidad & Tobago, 7.3% from Barbados and 6.5% from Haiti in this age-group. There is likely to have been an ageing of this migrant population since those data were recorded, a process that is likely to continue in the forthcoming two decades (unless there is a significant return movement, which at present appears unlikely).

In all the major groups of Caribbean nationals in Canada and for each decade of their arrival, females have been larger in number than males. The percentage male and female in the immigrant stock (1981) were for Jamaica, 43.7% male and 56.3% female; Trinidad & Tobago, 47% male, 53% female; Barbados, 44.7% male, 54.4% female; Haiti, 45.6% male, 54.4% female (ECLAC, 2000). This would be accounted for by the preponderance of females in clerical and service occupations and the opportunities for work in this sector among Caribbean migrants in Canada.

Education. Caribbean migrants in Canada demonstrate a high level of education as indicated by the fact that most persons enumerated in 1981 had received ten or more years of schooling. Besides, a large proportion of the migrants to Canada in the 1990s entered as students and thus engage in full-time or part-time study. Taking 1996 as an example, of the total of 3,275 from Jamaica only 47% were destined for the labour force, while 52.6% entered as students (the remaining 0.4% in miscellaneous categories). In the case of Trinidad, 2,199 entered, of which 55.7% were entering as workers 30% as students. From Haiti, 1,935 arrived, 45.3% for the labour force and 36% as students. The remaining persons entered included accompanying spouses and children and others not classified. (Statistics Canada, 1996).

Occupation. The great majority of the Caribbean immigrant stock in Canada (1981 Census) were in service occupations, followed by manufacturing. Within these areas, the majority were in clerical workers, mechanical workers and physicians. (ECLAC,200).

Caribbean Migration to the United Kingdom

Trends in the Movement

The movement of Caribbean people to the United Kingdom has been of a low volume since the 1970s following the removal in 1962 of open entry regulations for Caribbean Commonwealth citizens. Subsequently, specific categories of migrant have gained entry, in particular the dependants of previous migrants and those on work permits as specifically required or recruited workers, notably nurses. Students go for tertiary education, not only from the British Commonwealth Caribbean but also from other parts of the region.

The very high immigration of Commonwealth Caribbean citizens, at an average of 32,850 per annum between 1955 and 1962, fell to some 15,000 by 1966, thereafter to 5,000 in 1971 and approximately 3,000 by 1984. Numbers peaked slightly to approximately 6,000 in 1986 and then fell again in 1987 to approximately 4,000, an annual volume that has been maintained to the present time (data from the British Migration Census Division, cited in Thomas-Hope 1994).

Although the immigration streams are not currently of great volume, the importance of the migration trend lies in the fact that the decline in in-migration to Britain has been accompanied by an out-migration of Caribbean migrants, resulting in a net negative migration balance. Some of those leaving Britain moved to Canada and the United States but increasingly they went back to the Caribbean, establishing what has now become a significant movement of return migrants.

Immigrant Stock
The migrants in the United Kingdom who were born in the Commonwealth Caribbean numbered approximately 500,000 in 1971; 625,000 in 1980 and 500,000 in 1991 (OPCS Labour Force Surveys and Census). In 1991, the Caribbean-born population constituted approximately 8% of the total United Kingdom population.

In sharp contrast to the Caribbean immigration stock in the United States and Canada, that in the United Kingdom is quite advanced in terms of ageing. Because of the early arrival of the majority and the negligible immigration since the 1960s, the immigration stock will disappear by the middle of the twenty-first century but a significant British-born, Caribbean ethnic population will remain.

RETURN MIGRATION

It is common for migrants to return to their Caribbean country of origin for periodic or regular visits over a prolonged time before remaining indefinitely. Even then, many such persons continue to go back to the country of former residence for varying periods of time.

The return involves not just the movement of people but also the movement of remittances in the form of financial capital as well goods of various kinds (Thomas-Hope, 199a). These are typically transferred back to the Caribbean country through formal and informal channels either prior to, along with or following the return of the migrants themselves. The period of remittance transfer invariably continues for many years and is directly or indirectly associated with the intention to return. Not all returning migrants remit their savings to the Caribbean country, many preferring other countries perceived by them to be safer for investment. Professionals returning to work in the home country are able to earn sufficient to maintain themselves and families without repatriating most, all or even any of their savings, whereas those persons returning to retire in the Caribbean typically repatriate savings. Besides, they also continue to be in receipt of pensions and social security payments and other retirement benefits for the rest of their lives. This means that in many cases, returnees receive pensions from abroad in excess of twenty years following their return.

The Returnees from the United Kingdom in particular, have formed a number of associations of returning residents which provides the returnees themselves with a social network of persons with whom they share a common experience. In some cases, they channel funds and materials from abroad to assist in various local social welfare projects, activities that serve to indicate their commitment to development in the local communities to which they return.

In the case of Jamaica, the realization on the part of the government that the returning population had a potentially major contribution to make, led to the establishment of a Returning Residents Programme. This was introduced to encourage the return of nationals from abroad through public information in the countries of major concentrations of Jamaicans, together with tax concessions on the importation of household goods. A Returning Residents Facilitation Unit was created within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, headed by a Chief Executive Officer at Ambassadorial level (Government of Jamaica, 1998). A further programme, the Return of Talent Programme, sponsored by the International Organization of Migration (IOM) in association with the Government of Jamaica, assisted the return of some 50 persons from 1996-98, to work in the public sector where there was a need for qualified persons (Williams, 1998). This was an attempt to reverse some of the perceived ‘brain drain’ that had occurred.

Trends in the Movement

The source of the returnees to Jamaica since statistics were recorded in 1992, was predominantly the United Kingdom. (Table 7). The second largest number was from the United States and third, Canada. In contrast, in Antigua as well as St Kitts/Nevis, the largest numbers of returnees were intra-regional, the British Virgin Islands being the major source (Byron, 1994).

In addition to the voluntary ‘returnees’, there are now similar numbers of nationals abroad who are returned by the authorities at the destination as ‘deportees’ having been convicted of criminal offences. In contrast to the mainstream returning residents, this group has a major negative impact on Jamaican society and places particular strain on the police and security services.

Characteristics of the Returnees

Age. Contrary to general assumptions, the return is not confined to the period of retirement, even though many do return permanently at that stage of their lives. The figures for Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Antigua and the British Virgin Islands show that in none was there as much as half the returning population aged 50 or over. In contrast to the out-going migrants, the age profile was higher, as would be expected, but in each of these countries, considerably more than 50% of the population return to enter the labour force either as waged labour or as self-employed. (Table 8).

Occupation and Employment status. The occupations of return migrants in the same five states – Grenada. St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Antigua and the British Virgin Islands show a strong tendency for the return of high level occupational groups, again contradicting general assumptions about return migration. In the British Virgin Islands, the return population at the time of the 1990 Census was comprised of 54.6% in white collar occupations (legislators/managers, professionals, technicians and clerks); 27.8% were in high-level managerial and professional occupation categories. In Antigua, 42.7% were in white-collar occupations, in St. Lucia, 31.5% and St. Vincent & the Grenadines, 32.7%. (CCPH, 1994). There were also considerable numbers of returnees who were unskilled workers as well as craft workers, agricultural workers and service workers. Overall, therefore, there is a wide range of occupations represented among the returnee populations that should have positive implications for the countries of the return.

Remittances Associated with the Return. Remittances to Jamaica rose dramatically in the 1990s. The foreign currency received by the Bank of Jamaica through personal transfers between 1991 and 1997 exceeded the foreign currency earned in some of the traditional economic sectors (Table 9). In addition to the transfers of capital from abroad through the formal banking system there is still an important informal system of money transfers. These involve a number of private arrangements of a reciprocal nature. Likewise, in the Eastern Caribbean countries, large sums relative to their GDP are remitted in association with the return and intention to return. By 1990, the transfers of pensions alone were estimated at approximately one million US dollars (North and Whitehead, 1991). The sums have greatly increased through the 1990s not only from the United States but also form the United Kingdom. Almost 6 million pounds sterling of pension payments were transferred to Barbados from Britain in 1997; more than two million to St. Lucia and almost two million to Grenada (United Kingdom Department of Social Security, Pensions and Overseas Benefits Directorate, 1999).

The return of short-term workers on contract in the United States and Canada provides a special case. Because their contracts are negotiated by their respective governments rather than by individuals, there has been the opportunity for the setting of conditions for those that engage in these contracts. For the Jamaican workers, who comprise the great majority, the agreement set by the Ministry of Labour with the workers stipulated that 23% of their earnings would be automatically transferred in foreign currency to a bank in Jamaica and later received by the workers in local currency. McCoy estimated that for the 1980-81 sugar season in Florida alone, nearly $19 million were earned by Caribbean (mostly Jamaican) contract workers, of which US$7,764 were remitted through the mandatory savings plan, US$6,669 were remitted otherwise and the rest spent in the US, much of it on consumer items that were then taken home by the workers on conclusion of the contract (McCoy, 1985).

CONCLUSION

Intra-regional and extra-regional migrants are neither the least educated of the society, nor the poorest and least employable, reinforcing the observation that international migration is a ‘selection of the fittest’ (Thomas-Hope, 1992). Migration is highly selective in all its aspects and at all its locations – the places of origin and destination. As a consequence, there is a tendency for Caribbean countries to lose a disproportionate number of educated and skilled persons through migration, with a potentially negative impact upon small, developing states. However, there is a compensatory set of movements, and this intrinsic dynamic of the migration process must not be underestimated (Maingot,1999; Thomas-Hope, 1999b). The loss of skilled persons from any Caribbean country results in the need to fill high level occupational vacancies from other migrants, either from other parts of the region or outside. The pattern that emerges appears to reflect movement between countries in a developmental hierarchy to be sure, but this must not be interpreted in a simplistic way to suggest mono-causal explanations for the pattern of movement. The issue is whether the overall migration process produces a net loss or net gain for the countries affected.

The out-migration of skilled nationals need not be regarded as a net loss to the sending country if it can create space for the mobility of other people already in the system and an opportunity to encourage new in-migration. There is much to be gained from the fresh input of immigrants and the commitment of returning nationals, provided that they enter an environment within which they can effectively participate and to which they can usefully contribute.

Transnational Mobility

This is a situation whereby Caribbean people maintain a home base in two countries between which they move with varying frequency. The extent of this phenomenon has risen greatly since the 1980s with the increased facility for travel and it may well increase further. Such mobility reflects the importance of the migration linkages not only at the country or national level but at the level of the household and family as well.

The simultaneous impact of both countries upon the households, wider families and even communities are continual, and those involved constantly adapt their lives and livelihoods around the relative opportunities of each place for work, investment, education, social activity and recreation. In this way the household attempts to collectively minimize risks and maximize opportunities. Within this framework, there is a constant flow of information and ideas across national boundaries and the movement in one or other direction of money and material goods and also ideas, fashions and fads. Families re-unite at one or other location from time to time and children move back and forth for holidays, socializing in a transnational environment. This is of major significance in the consolidating of networks and experiences that are transferred from one generation to another. It has also conditioned the characteristics of the return migration process. For their contacts and patterns of mobility continue in varying degrees after the return has taken place, and while providing an insurance or safety valve for any future wish to re-migrate, they also provide numerous opportunities for enrichment at the personal level.

From the perspective of the wider society, the transnational community creates countless opportunities for the Caribbean region in the export of culture and local products. Carribbean populations in North America and Europe provide the main channels and disseminators of Caribbean culture and markets for its food and other ‘ethnic’ products. Caribbean groups launch art, drama and musical shows in the localities of its migrant communities. Carnival in Toronto and London promotes the market for Caribbean culture, especially music and drama, painting, sculpture and craft.

It must be emphasised that transnational households and return migration are not new to the Caribbean process, but they have recently become important trends because of increased opportunities for such activities in recent decades. So important are these trends that they require a different paradigm for the conceptualization of migration itself and a new perspective on the implication for policy than that which has traditionally pertained in the past.

Implications for Policy

On the basis of the trends and patterns of Caribbean in- and out-migration, an important issue for policy is the recognition of the potential value of the free movement of people, both to individuals and countries. A contradictory, therefore negative factor, could be the reinforcement of dependency of Caribbean countries, especially in relation to countries of the North. From the perspective of culture, there could be the danger of local traditions being lost as they become overwhelmed by the dominance of North American or European culture and tastes of all kinds, not least that for imported ‘fast food’ instead of local varieties.

Although there are dangers in this, the trends towards increasing globalization at the beginning of the twenty-first century make integration in global networks an imperative for development. Without the transnational communities, the alternative could be a total displacement of local cultures and traditions. The transnational community actually provides one of the most effective ways of counter-balancing the direction of cultural importation, by providing critical linkages for the strengthening of Caribbean culture and the reaping of some of its economic rewards. Migration has long been a means of extending the opportunities, and overcoming some of the limitations, of small, developing Caribbean states and, overall, has enriched the region in a variety of ways.

The trends have shown that Caribbean migration is highly responsive to occupational and educational opportunities in other countries, yet there is also a strong tendency to return to the native country later on. Strategies for harnessing the potential human capital at all points of the migration trajectory, as well as the financial and other material generated by and available through migration, are necessary so that these potential assets are not wasted.

With regard to the movement of human capital, an initiative for filling labour force needs throughout the Caribbean followed the West Indian Commission Report Time for Action (1992). The free movement of labour between countries of the Caribbean Community was proposed, with a view to establishing a single market for human resources, served by a common pool of workers at all levels of skill. The intention was to begin with opportunities for freer movement of professional and skilled persons, starting with graduates of the University of the West Indies, itself a regional institution. It is important that initiatives such as this be fully implemented and more effectively facilitated than is currently the case. Return migrants have demonstrated their propensity for leading and becoming involved in developmental projects. This is input and potential input in which national governments should be proactive, engaging in dialogue with migrant groups in order that efforts be sustainable in their effects.

In terms of financial capital, there are already strong indications of the potential flows back to the original source countries associated with the migration process. The transnational household and return migration are of particular value in the generation and direction of these flows. The creation and publicizing of incentives for investment are not only an imperative but must be of such a kind that they are sustainable in their impact. This is especially important given the uncertainty of the period over which large remittances will be received, for they will only be sustained for as long as migrants continue to return to their countries of origin.

Specific programmes may be launched to capitalize on the benefits of migration, and these are important initiatives, but the trends show that there is much spontaneous positive feedback through the migration process and this too needs to be encouraged. For undoubtedly, in the long run, the existence of a social, economic and political environment conducive to productivity and social development is the essential prerequisite for a positive net impact of immigration and return migration.

REFERENCES

Byron, M. (1994), Post-war Caribbean Migration to Britain: the Unfinished Cycle, Aldershot, U. K.

CCPHC (Caribbean Community Regional Census Office) (1994), Commonwealth Caribbean Population and Housing Census, 1991, Port of Spain, Trinidad.

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2000), Demographic Bulletin: International Migration in Latin America, Santiago, Chile, XXXIII: 65.

Government of Jamaica, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade (1998) The Returning Residents Programme 1993-1997, Kingston, Jamaica, Ministry Paper No. 12/98.

McCoy, T. L. and Wood, C. H. (1982), Caribbean Workers in the Florida Sugar Cane Industry Occasional Paper No. 2 Centre for Latin America Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

McCoy, T. L. (1985), “The Impact of US Temporary Worker Programs on Caribbean Development: Evidence from H-2 Workers in Florida Sugar”. In: Robert Pastor, Migration and Development in the Caribbean: The Unexplored Connection, Boulder, Colorado, 178-206.

Maingot, Anthony P.(1999) “Emigration Dynamics in the Caribbean: The Cases of Haiti and the Dominican Republic”. In: Reginald Appleyard, Emigration Dynamics in Developing Countries Volume III: Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, Aldershot, U.K., 232-284.

North D. S. and Whitehead, J. (1991), “Policy Recommendations for Improving the Utisation of Emigrant Resources in the Eastern Caribbean Nations”. In: A. P. Maingot, Small Country Development and International Labor Flows: Experiences in the Caribbean, Boulder, Colorado, 15-52.

Planning Institute of Jamaica (1999). Economic and Social Survey Jamaica, Kingston, Jamaica.

Schiller, N. G., Basch, L. and Blanck, C. S. (1995), “From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration”, Anthropological Quarterly, 68: 48-63.

Statistics Canada: Information Systems and Technology Branch (1999), Citizenship and Immigration Statistics, 1996. Ottawa.

Thomas-Hope, Elizabeth (1986),”Transients and Settlers: Varieties of Caribbean Migrants and the Socio-Economic Implications of their Return”, International Migration, 24: 559-570.

___________________ (1988), Caribbean Skilled International Migration and the Transnational Household, Geoforum, 19 (4): 423-432.

___________________ (1991), Explanation in Caribbean Migration: Perception and the Image – Jamaica, Barbados, St. Vincent, London.

___________________ (1994), Impact of Migration in the receiving Countries: The United Kingdom, Geneva, IOM.

__________________ (1999a), “Return Migration to Jamaica and its Development Potential, International migration, Vol.37, No.1, pp. 183-208.

___________________ (1999b), “Emigration Dynamics in the Anglophone Caribbean”. In: Reginald Appleyard (ed) Emigration Dynamics in Developing Countries Volume III: Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, pp.232-284. Aldershot, U.K.

U.K. Department of Social Security, Pensions and Overseas Benefits Directorate (1999), Tables of Retirement Pensions, Widows Benefits and Sickness and Invalidity Benefits paid to Caribbean Territories, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, U.K.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1999) Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997. Washington D.C.

Williams, Elizabeth (1998) “Key Issues relating to migration in Jamaica”, (unpublished) Kingston, Jamaica, IOM.

Table 1
Place of Birth of Nonnationals in Select Caribbean Countries 1990 and 1991

| |Antigua |Bahamas |British |US |Trinidad |
| | | |Virgin Islands |Virgin Islands |and Tobago |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|Place of Birth |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |
|Total |13.335 |100,0 |26754 |100 |8.035 |100,0 |30.407 |100,0 |49.820 |95,2 |
|Anguilla |1 |0,0 |… |… |… |… |899 |3,0 |… |… |
|Antigua |N/A |N/A |14 |0,1 |355 |4,4 |4.398 |14,5 |… |… |
|Bahamas |5 |0,0 |N/A |N/A |13 |0,2 |… |… |… |… |
|Barbados |216 |1,8 |245 |0,9 |86 |1,1 |… |… |2.411 |0,0 |
|Belize |8 |0,1 |33 |0,1 |3 |0,0 |… |… |… |… |
|Bermuda |10 |0,1 |35 |0,1 |9 |0,1 |… |… |… |… |
|British Virgin Islands |70 |0,6 |5 |0 |N/A |N/A |2.665 |8,8 |… |… |
|Dominica |2.580 |20,9 |37 |0,1 |566 |7,0 |3.219 |10,6 |… |… |
|Grenada |122 |1,0 |30 |0,1 |290 |3,6 |… |… |16.589 |33,3 |
|Guyana |1.753 |14,2 |438 |1,6 |770 |9,6 |… |… |5.140 |10,3 |
|Jamaica |408 |3,3 |2.920 |10,9 |249 |3,1 |… |… |… |… |
|Montserrat |892 |7,2 |2 |0 |99 |1,2 |623 |2,0 |… |… |
|St. Kitts and Nevis |495 |4,0 |14 |0,1 |1.422 |17,7 |5.828 |19,2 |… |… |
|St. Lucia |414 |3,4 |26 |0,1 |251 |3,1 |2.533 |8,3 |1.306 |2,6 |
|St. Vincent |505 |4,1 |21 |0,1 |957 |11,9 |… |… |11.625 |23,3 |
|Trinidad |376 |3,0 |290 |1,1 |189 |2,4 |1.837 |6,0 |N/A |N/A |
|Turks and Caicos |4 |0,0 |2.173 |8,1 |2 |0,0 |… |… |… |… |
|Us. Virgin Islands |451 |3,7 |5 |0 |565 |7,0 |N/A |N/A |… |… |
|All Others |4.025 |32,7 |20.466 |76,5 |2.209 |27,5 |8.405 |27,6 |12.749 |25,5 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |

Source: Based on data from, Caribbean Community Regional Census Office, 1994
N/A - Not Applicable
… - Denotes no Migrants or amalgamation in the category ' All Others'

Table 2
Regional Migration Rates for Select Caribbean Countries 1990 and 1991

| | | |Migrants |Migrant Rates |
|Selected Countries |Total Population |Natives |In - Migrants |Out - Migrants |In - Migrants |Out - Migrants |
| | | | | | | |
|Total |5.219.302 |5.117.708 |104.669 |104.669 |… |… |
|Antigua and Barbuda |59.104 |55.056 |8.287 |5.620 |15,1 |10,7 |
|Bahamas |233.228 |210.590 |4.047 |109 |1,9 |0,1 |
|Barbados |244.817 |236.322 |12.847 |4.240 |5,4 |1,9 |
|British Virgin Islands |16.105 |13.847 |5.812 |2.949 |42 |26,8 |
|Dominica |69.463 |67.642 |871 |7.507 |1,3 |10,1 |
|Grenada |83.838 |82.155 |2.806 |18.687 |3,4 |19,1 |
|Guyana |701.654 |698.950 |1.003 |13.453 |0,1 |1,9 |
|Jamaica |2.299.675 |2.271.072 |… |4.926 |… |0,2 |
|Montserrat |10.634 |9.928 |1.362 |1.958 |13,7 |18,6 |
|St. Kitts and Nevis |40.612 |38.886 |1.553 |8.309 |4 |18,2 |
|St. Lucia |133.308 |130.723 |2.996 |8.483 |2,3 |6,2 |
|St. Vincent |106.482 |104.980 |2.734 |18.169 |2,6 |15,1 |
|Trinidad and Tobago |1.118.574 |1.105.325 |37.071 |8.735 |3,4 |0,8 |
|U.S Virgin Island |101.809 |92.232 |23.280 |1.524 |25,2 |2,2 |
| | | | | | | |

Source: Based on data from, Caribbean Community Regional Census Office, 1994
… - Denotes that no data were available

Table 3
Occupational Status By Nationality in Select Caribbean Countries, 1990

| |Bahamas |Jamaica |British Virgin Islands |
| |Nationals |Nonnationals |Nationals |Nonnationals |Nationals |Nonnationals |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Occupation |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |Total |Percent |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Total |89.744 |100,0 |15.715 |100,0 |673.007 |100,0 |1.202 |100,0 |3.330 |100,0 |5.319 |100,0 |
|Legislator/Manager |4.543 |5,1 |1.062 |6,8 |33.028 |4,9 |196 |16,3 |399 |12,0 |422 |7,9 |
|Hospitality |… |… |… |… |… |… |… |… |1 |0,0 |0 |0,0 |
|Professional |6.054 |6,7 |2.202 |14,0 |36.460 |5,4 |552 |45,9 |223 |6,7 |365 |6,9 |
|Technical/ Assoc. Prof. |8.043 |9,0 |906 |5,8 |33.478 |5,0 |144 |12,0 |439 |13,2 |445 |8,4 |
|Clerk |15.041 |16,8 |980 |6,2 |56.557 |8,4 |112 |9,3 |596 |17,9 |409 |7,7 |
|Services and sales |20.705 |23,1 |1.211 |7,7 |89.501 |13,3 |44 |3,7 |431 |12,9 |1.133 |21,3 |
|Skilled agri.& fisheries |3.245 |3,6 |1.765 |11,2 |121.761 |18,1 |33 |2,7 |142 |4,3 |135 |2,5 |
|Craft & related |13.790 |15,4 |2.060 |13,1 |115.916 |17,2 |48 |4,0 |493 |14,8 |1.280 |24,1 |
|Plant/Machine operators |4.573 |5,1 |381 |2,4 |49.941 |7,4 |17 |1,4 |219 |6,6 |224 |4,2 |
|Elementary |13.750 |15,3 |5.148 |32,8 |136.365 |20,3 |56 |4,7 |387 |11,6 |10 |17,0 |

Source: Based on data from, Caribbean Community Regional Census Office, 1994 … - Denotes that no data were available

Occupation and Class of Worker in the US Virgin Islands

| |Nationals |Nonnationals |
|Occupation |Number |Percent |Number |Percent |
|Employed persons 16 years and over |13.485 |100,0 |20.580 |100,0 |
|Executive Managerial |1.530 |11,3 |1.691 |8,2 |
|Professional speciality |1.330 |9,9 |1.374 |6,7 |
|Technical, sales, and administrative |4.753 |35,2 |5.668 |27,5 |
|support | | | | |
|Service |2.361 |17,5 |4.829 |23,5 |
|Farming, forestry, and fishing |235 |1,7 |364 |1,8 |
|Precision production, craft and repair |1.513 |11,2 |3.602 |17,5 |
|services | | | | |
|Operators, faricators and laborers |1.763 |13,1 |3.052 |14,8 |

Source: Based on data from, Caribbean Community Regional Census Office, 1994

Table 4
Immigrants Admitted to the United States By Country of Birth Fiscal Years 1987 – 1997

|Country of Birth |1987 |1988 |1989 |1990 |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Anguilla |21 |36 |43 |41 |56 |46 |23 |31 |26 |36 |19 |
|Antigua |874 |837 |979 |1.319 |944 |619 |554 |438 |374 |406 |393 |
|Aruba |75 |47 |73 |83 |56 |62 |36 |24 |27 |28 |26 |
|Bahamas |556 |1.283 |861 |1.378 |1.062 |641 |686 |589 |585 |768 |641 |
|Barbados |1.665 |1.455 |1.616 |1.745 |1.460 |1.091 |1.184 |897 |734 |1.043 |829 |
|Bermuda |154 |166 |182 |203 |146 |153 |156 |118 |111 |103 |75 |
|British Virgin Is. |296 |395 |258 |105 |137 |174 |166 |137 |98 |87 |93 |
|Cayman Is |25 |26 |48 |53 |23 |40 |16 |30 |26 |24 |35 |
|Cuba |28.916 |17.558 |10.046 |10.645 |10.349 |11.791 |13.666 |14.727 |17.937 |26.466 |33.587 |
|Dominica |740 |611 |748 |963 |982 |809 |683 |507 |591 |797 |746 |
|Dominican Republic |24.858 |27.189 |26.723 |42.195 |41.405 |41.969 |45.420 |51.189 |38.512 |39.604 |27.053 |
|Grenada |1.098 |842 |1.046 |1.294 |979 |848 |827 |595 |583 |787 |755 |
|Guadeloupe |37 |54 |38 |54 |34 |50 |49 |41 |48 |52 |52 |
|Haiti |14.819 |34.806 |13.658 |20.324 |47.527 |11.002 |10.094 |13.333 |14.021 |18.386 |15.057 |
|Jamaica |23.148 |20.966 |24.523 |25.013 |23.828 |18.915 |17.241 |14.349 |16.398 |19.089 |17.840 |
|Martinique |34 |25 |30 |32 |25 |25 |17 |20 |11 |23 |20 |
|Montserrat |104 |104 |124 |172 |143 |104 |102 |69 |83 |99 |99 |
|Netherlands Antilles |81 |62 |65 |80 |40 |37 |65 |48 |58 |76 |43 |
|St. Kitts and Nevis |589 |660 |795 |896 |830 |626 |544 |370 |360 |357 |377 |
|St. Lucia |496 |606 |709 |833 |766 |654 |634 |449 |403 |582 |531 |
|St. Vincent & The Grenadines |746 |634 |892 |973 |808 |687 |657 |524 |349 |606 |581 |
|Trinidad and Tobago |3.543 |3.947 |5.394 |6.740 |8.407 |7.008 |6.577 |6.292 |5.424 |7.344 |6.409 |
|Turks and Caicos Is. |21 |47 |78 |206 |121 |59 |39 |26 |27 |35 |37 |
|Unknown |3 |1 |3 |4 |11 |3 |2 |1 |2 |3 |1 |

Source: US Immigration and Naturalization Services Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997

Table 5 Immigrants Admitted to the United States By Major Occupation Group, 1997

| |Occupation |
|Country of Birth |Total |Professional |Executive |Sales |Administrative |Precision |Operator, |Farming |Service |No occupation or |
| | |specialty and |administrative and | |support |Production, craft |fabricator, and|forestry and | |no reported1 |
| | |Technical |managerial | | |and repair |labour |fishing | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|Caribbean |105.299 |4.565 |1.360 |2.403 |2.575 |4.911 |14.409 |1.296 |10.587 |63.011 |
|Cuba |33.587 |1.198 |347 |1.156 |673 |2.243 |8.272 |165 |2.696 |16.837 |
|Dominican Republic |27.053 |1.271 |401 |387 |672 |1.099 |3.227 |462 |1.326 |18.208 |
|Haiti |15.057 |494 |150 |387 |218 |795 |1.288 |370 |835 |10.520 |
|Jamaica |17.840 |895 |200 |255 |775 |310 |936 |251 |3.831 |10.387 |
|Trinidad and Tobago |6.409 |383 |137 |110 |261 |257 |361 |10 |860 |4.030 |
|Other Caribbean |5.353 |324 |125 |108 |158 |207 |325 |38 |1.039 |3.029 |

Source: US Immigration and Naturalization Services Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997

1 Includes homemakers, students, unemployed or retired persons, and others not reporting or with an unknown occupation

Table 6
Country of Last Permanent Residence by Year of Landing for Canada, 1990-1996

|Country of Birth |1990 |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |
| | | | | | | | |
|Total |13.865 |20.001 |20.063 |15.751 |9.737 |8.027 |9.246 |
|Anguilla |- |2 |2 |- |- |- |4 |
|Antigua |25 |69 |67 |58 |25 |32 |23 |
|Aruba |1 |- |4 |2 |- |1 |- |
|Bahamas |27 |32 |23 |21 |32 |28 |32 |
|Barbados |335 |396 |350 |410 |- |216 |180 |
|Bermuda |47 |39 |34 |34 |27 |22 |21 |
|Cayman Is |16 |19 |3 |10 |9 |10 |6 |
|Cuba |146 |165 |237 |385 |372 |443 |512 |
|Dominica |73 |128 |121 |105 |52 |73 |59 |
|Dominican Republic |361 |517 |556 |643 |425 |276 |307 |
|Grenada |166 |273 |434 |493 |231 |359 |359 |
|Guadeloupe |18 |14 |6 |9 |6 |10 |4 |
|Haiti |2.355 |2.793 |2.365 |3.629 |2.085 |2.007 |1.935 |
|Jamaica |4.887 |4.997 |5.921 |5.990 |3.882 |3.599 |3.275 |
|Martinique |10 |35 |15 |15 |5 |3 |7 |
|Montserrat |16 |9 |12 |6 |6 |4 |6 |
|Netherlands Antilles |15 |9 |11 |13 |8 |9 |7 |
|Puerto Rico |3 |6 |7 |3 |- |1 |5 |
|St. Kitts and Nevis |38 |33 |56 |35 |17 |22 |16 |
|St. Lucia |100 |130 |124 |152 |75 |97 |118 |
|St. Vincent and The Grenadines |175 |270 |290 |367 |186 |231 |244 |
|Trinidad and Tobago |2.851 |2.969 |4.304 |4.171 |2.347 |2.607 |2.199 |
|Turks and Caicos Is. |- |1 |1 |1 |2 |1 |1 |
|Virgin Islands, British |22 |15 |6 |8 |8 |4 |2 |
|Virgin Islands U.S.A |2 |1 |3 |3 |2 |1 |- |

Source: Statistics Canada, Information and Technologies Branch, 1996

Table 7 Select Countries: Percentage Distribution of Return Migrants by Country Last Lived, 1990

|Country from which migrants |Antigua |BVI |Grenada |St. Lucia |St. Vincent |Barbados |St. Kitts/Nevis |Jamaica |
|returned | | | | | | | | |
|Antigua /Barbuda |---- |2,89 |0,34 |1,62 |1,14 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|Barbados |2,27 |2,83 |2,82 |12,98 |12,88 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|St. Lucia |1,04 |0,40 |1,08 |---- |2,01 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|Trinidad |3,07 |1,21 |38,25 |2,59 |35,60 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|St. Croix |15,09 |2,36 |0,25 |7,51 |0,96 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|St. Thomas |11,41 |44,89 |0,25 |1,11 |0,10 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|Aruba |6,47 |0,20 |3,47 |0,43 |2,90 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|Martinique |0,07 |---- |0,03 |12,91 |0,17 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|Canada |6,54 |1,01 |6,79 |4,70 |6,87 |13,00 |8,00 |11,30 |
|United Kingdom |10,70 |3,16 |22,08 |18,86 |14,73 |60,00 |34,00 |43,80 |
|USA |27,15 |27,32 |11,64 |13,30 |8,99 |27,00 |20,00 |38,10 |
|Venezuela |0,04 |---- |3,35 |0,56 |0,23 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|US Virgin Islands |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |38,00 |0,00 |
|Not Stated |0,69 |---- |1,82 |0,14 |0,10 |---- |0,00 |0,00 |
|Other Countries |21,63 |13,73 |7,84 |20,23 |13,32 |---- |0,00 |6,80 |

Source: Based on data from Caribbean Community Regional Census Office, 1994

Table 8 Age of Returnees in Selected Caribbean Islands

|Country |Age Range |TOTAL |
|Grenada |> 30 |21,90 |
| |30 - > 50 |36,80 |
| |50 + |41,20 |
|St. Lucia |> 30 |9,00 |
| |30 - > 50 |46,30 |
| |50 + |44,70 |
|St. Vincent & The Grenadines |> 30 |24,10 |
| |30 - > 50 |39,80 |
| |50 + |36,10 |
|Antigua |> 30 |28,40 |
| |30 - > 50 |40,60 |
| |50 + |31,00 |
|British Virgin Islands |> 30 |34,90 |

Source: Based on data from Caribbean Commonwealth Regional Census

Table 9 Major Sectors of the Jamaican Economy: Revenue as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

|Year |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |
|Remittances as a percentage of GDP |4,1 |7,8 |8,1 |11,5 |11,7 |10,7 |9,8 |
|Bauxite as Percentage of GDP |3,1 |2,8 |2,2 |1,8 |1,5 |1,4 |1,2 |
|Alumina as Percentage of GDP |14,7 |14,8 |14,8 |13,9 |13,6 |11 |10,5 |
|Sugar as percentage of GDP |2,4 |2,6 |2,6 |1,8 |2,1 |2 |1,6 |

Source: Based on data from the Bank of Jamaica, Planning Institue of Jamaica, Economic and Social Survey, 1996 and 1997
-----------------------
[1] Dr. Elizabeth Thomas-Hope, The James Seivright Moss-Solomon (Snr) Professor of Environmental Management, University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica.

-----------------------
1.2.18