Hongera diaspora wetu, hela zenu kwa njia ya Mpesa zaendelea kuvunja rekodi

[MK254]

International money transfers on Safaricom’s M-Pesa platform grew 64 per cent to Sh13.1 billion in the year ended March after the telco acquired a license from the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) to offer outward cash remittances.

Safaricom launched M-Pesa services in Tanzania in February 2015, followed by Rwanda three months later after receiving a cash remittance operating licence from the CBK in 2014.

M-Pesa was previously limited to receiving cash inflows.

The telco, which disclosed the performance in its latest annual report, also entered the Ugandan market last year.

Partnerships

It is eyeing a larger piece of the international remittances market that has been dominated by banks and international money transfer firms, some of whom it has partnered with.

Statistics from the CBK show that Kenyans living abroad repatriated $861.9 million (Sh86.1 billion) in the six months to June.

North America, mainly the US and Canada, remains the leading source of remittance inflows to Kenya, bringing in 49.3 per cent of total diaspora cash, according to CBK data.

Safaricom has partnered with several international money transfer firms such as Western Union, Money Gram, BICS, Vodacom and MTN to allow cross border money transfers.

M-Pesa diaspora cash inflows hit Sh13.1 billion

 

[Kiranga]

Nchi kutegemea remittances sana ni dalili ya udhaifu wa uchumi wake wa ndani. Inaonekana watu wanahemea kwa walioko nje.

 

[MK254]

Nchi kutegemea remittances sana ni dalili ya udhaifu wa uchumi wake wa ndani. Inaonekana watu wanahemea kwa walioko nje.

Workforce ya Wakenya ni ya nguvu sana, tumewalea na kuwapa nguvu na uwezo wa kutoka na kuvuna huko nje kwa ajili ya nchi yao. Wanawakilisha kweli, wanachuma hadi Bongo, Malawi, Afrika Kusini na hata Somalia wanakwepa mabomu na kuchuma.

 

[Quickly]

Nchi kutegemea remittances sana ni dalili ya udhaifu wa uchumi wake wa ndani. Inaonekana watu wanahemea kwa walioko nje.

Nita kukosoa hapo. Kinyume na ulivyodai, remittances linaonyesha kuwa watu wanajitegemea kupitia kwa wapendwa zao walio mbali, na sio kuzungusha bakuli. Hizo hela hutumika kwa kufungua fursa za kibiashara, sio eti ni msaada.

 

[Kiranga]

Nita kukosoa hapo. Kinyume na ulivyodai, remittances linaonyesha kuwa watu wanajitegemea kupitia kwa wapendwa zao walio mbali, na sio kuzungusha bakuli. Hizo hela hutumika kwa kufungua fursa za kibiashara, sio eti ni msaada.

Unawezaje kuhakikisha hilo?

 

[Quickly]

Unawezaje kuhakikisha hilo?

Ushuhuda kwa watu ninao wajua binafsi. Wengi wamenunua hadi mashamba na magari na hayo pesa. Labda kwenu kukoje?

 

[Iconoclastes]

Nchi kutegemea remittances sana ni dalili ya udhaifu wa uchumi wake wa ndani. Inaonekana watu wanahemea kwa walioko nje.

Tunakuomba ufafanue hili kidogo, na ukitumia nchi kama China na USA kama mifano

 

[Iconoclastes]

Ushuhuda kwa watu ninao wajua binafsi. Wengi wamenunua hadi mashamba na magari na hayo pesa. Labda kwenu kukoje?

Do u think he even knows what remmitance is?

 

[MK254]

Tunakuomba ufafanue hili kidogo, na ukitumia nchi kama China na USA kama mifano

Huyo jamaa Kiranga huwa yuko sawa upstairs, ni mmoja wa Watanzania ambao nawakubali, ila hapa kachapia, wacha tumsubiri aje na kushusha kwanini kaibuka na kauli ya ovyo.

 

[Iconoclastes]

Huyo jamaa Kiranga huwa yuko sawa upstairs, ni mmoja wa Watanzania ambao nawakubali, ila hapa kachapia, wacha tumsubiri aje na kushusha kwanini kaibuka na kauli ya ovyo.

Basi aje akatueleze kiunaga ubaga mbona anafikiri nchi zinazopata remittances kwa wingi ina maana zimedhoofka kiuchumi. Hawa ni watu wa Kenya ambao wameekeza ugenini ama wanafanya kazi ugenini ambao wanatuma pesa ambazo wameptengeza huko nchi za nje Kenya. Haina tofauti kabisa na wanavyofanya Uingereza, America ama China kuwekeza na watu wao kufanya kazi katika nchi za nje halafu baadaye kutuma pesa wanazopata kwenye nchi zao hivyo kuboost uchumi zao.
FYI, Kiranga, Kenya haitegemei zaidi remittances kama njia ya kupata fedha. Kenya iko very economically diverse, ina mbinu kadhaa ya kupata fedha kusupport uchumi wake.

 

[Kiranga]

Basi aje akatueleze kiunaga ubaga mbona anafikiri nchi zinazopata remittances kwa wingi ina maana zimedhoofka kiuchumi. Hawa ni watu wa Kenya ambao wameekeza ugenini ama wanafanya kazi ugenini ambao wanatuma pesa ambazo wameptengeza huko nchi za nje Kenya. Haina tofauti kabisa na wanavyofanya Uingereza, America ama China kuwekeza na watu wao kufanya kazi katika nchi za nje halafu baadaye kutuma pesa wanazopata kwenye nchi zao hivyo kuboost uchumi zao.
FYI, Kiranga, Kenya haitegemei zaidi remittances kama njia ya kupata fedha. Kenya iko very economically diverse, ina mbinu kadhaa ya kupata fedha kusupport uchumi wake.

Tunaongelea remittances hapa. Hakuna aliyebisha kwamba Kenya ina a diverse economy.

First thing first, nchi inayopokea remittances haina control ya hela hizo kama nchi hizo remittances zinapotoka.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Marekani in theory wanaweza kuweka barriers za remittances na barriers hizo zikasababisha wanaotamba kwa kupata hela nyingi za remittances wazime fegi wenyewe.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Remittances create dependency.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Remittances create the problem of throwing money at every problem and thinking that that is the solution.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Ukitaka kuonesha umahiri wa Kenya katika suala la remittances, usitambe kwa hela zilizotumwa. Onesha uwiano kati ya hela zilizotumwa na vitu zilizofanya.

Kama hujaweza kuonesha hivyo hatujui kama hizo remittances si za Wasomali wanaofund Al-Shabab ambao hawawezi kutuma hela Somalia hivyo wanatumia Kenya kama gateway ya kupeleka hela Somalia.

 

[Iconoclastes]

Tunaongelea remittances hapa. Hakuna aliyebisha kwamba Kenya ina a diverse economy.

First thing first, nchi inayopokea remittances haina control ya hela hizo kama nchi hizo remittances zinapotoka.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Marekani in theory wanaweza kuweka barriers za remittances na barriers hizo zikasababisha wanaotamba kwa kupata hela nyingi za remittances wazime fegi wenyewe.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Remittances create dependency.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Remittances create the problem of throwing money at every problem and thinking that that is the solution.

Hilo unakubali au hukubali?

Ukitaka kuonesha umahiri wa Kenya katika suala la remittances, usitambe kwa hela zilizotumwa. Onesha uwiano kati ya hela zilizotumwa na vitu zilizofanya.

Kama hujaweza kuonesha hivyo hatujui kama hizo remittances si za Wasomali wanaofund Al-Shabab ambao hawawezi kutuma hela Somalia hivyo wanatumia Kenya kama gateway ya kupeleka hela Somalia.

You had said:

Nchi kutegemea remittances sana ni dalili ya udhaifu wa uchumi wake wa ndani. Inaonekana watu wanahemea kwa walioko nje.

However u have failed to explained why u think a country that receives a lot of remittances has an underlying economic problems. U are instead highlighting the demerits of remittances, which by the way may be true about even the other sectors such as tourism, mining, agriculture etc.

Most of the issues u have outlined above however are merely suppositions, not all are necessarily true about Kenya. ie:

Remittances create dependency
to whom? You assume that pipo back at home do not engage in any money-making activities, all they do is sit the whole day waiting for money to come from America.

Remittances create the problem of throwing money at every problem and thinking that that is the solution.
Really?

Ukitaka kuonesha umahiri wa Kenya katika suala la remittances, usitambe kwa hela zilizotumwa. Onesha uwiano kati ya hela zilizotumwa na vitu zilizofanya.
Yes, we can tell u rather straight facedly that the remittances are used in development projects back at home. Good houses have been built, schools, roads, power connections. Those abroad have funded the education of their siblings they've left behind in Kenya. The cost of medical care for the aged parents funded. Much of the funds have been dedicated into worthy use.

But again, that squarely depends on the individual recipients.


Kama hujaweza kuonesha hivyo hatujui kama hizo remittances si za Wasomali wanaofund Al-Shabab ambao hawawezi kutuma hela Somalia hivyo wanatumia Kenya kama gateway ya kupeleka hela Somalia
That can be possible, but surely Safaricom in conjunction with the govt do have the capability to monitor the movement of these monies, the kind of pipo btwn whom the money changes hands. Much of that money comes from the law abiding Kenyans, who mean no ill-intent by sending some of the money they are earning abroad back to Kenya.
The issue of terrorism being funded by the elements abroad was the concern that motivated the govt to shut down one thriving Somali-owned cash transfer service, Daahabshil.
But truth be told, not all Somalis are terrorists sympathizers.



It isnt true that when a country recieves a lot of foreign remittances, then there exists a problem within the economy. That is nonsense. For remittances is just one of the many ways countries earn foreign exchange.

 

[Kiranga]

You had said:

However u have failed to explained

"You have failed to explained" is ungrammatical. "You have failed to explain" is the correct grammar. You have failed grammar.

why u think a country that receives a lot of remittances has an underlying internal economic problems?

"An underlying internal economic" should be followed by "problem", not problems. An is singular, not plural.

I have stated that a remittance recipient country has little control over the remittance, the source country has control. If you do not see that as a fundamental problem we have a fundamental difference.

U are instead highlighting the demerits of international remittances, which by the way may be true about even the US...
We can also talk about the merits and demerits of other sectors such as tourism, mining, agriculture etc.

We are talking about Kenya here, why would we talk about the US? We are talking about remittances here, why would we talk about tourism?

Most of the issues u have outlined above however are merely suppositions, not all are necessarily true about Kenya. ie:

Remittances create dependency
to whom? You assume that pipo back at home do not engage in any-making activities, sitting the whole day waiting for the money to come from America?

Remittances create the problem of throwing money at every problem and thinking that that is the solution.
Really?

Ukitaka kuonesha umahiri wa Kenya katika suala la remittances, usitambe kwa hela zilizotumwa. Onesha uwiano kati ya hela zilizotumwa na vitu zilizofanya.

Can you show the data?

Yes, we can tell u rather straight facedly that the remittances are used in development projects back at home. Good houses have been built, schools, roads, power connections. Those abroad have funded the education of their siblings they've left behind in Kenya. Ther cost of medical care of the aged parents funded. Much of the funds have been dedicated into useful use.

Data please.

But again, that squarely depends on the individual recipients.


Kama hujaweza kuonesha hivyo hatujui kama hizo remittances si za Wasomali wanaofund Al-Shabab ambao hawawezi kutuma hela Somalia hivyo wanatumia Kenya kama gateway ya kupeleka hela Somalia

That can be possible, but surely Safaricom in conjunction with the govt do have the capability to monitor the movement of these monies, the kind of pipo btwn whom the money changes hands. Much of that money comes from the law abiding Kenyans, who mean no ill-intent by sending some of the money they are earning abroad back to Kenya.
The issue of terrorism being funded by the elements abroad was the concern that motivated the govt to shut down one thriving Somali-owned cash transfer service, Daahabshil.
But truth be told, not all Somalis are terrorists sympathizers.

Data please.

It isnt true that when a country recieves a lot of foreign remittances, then there exists a problem with the economy. That is nonsense. For remittances is just one of the many ways countries earn foreign exchange.

Soaring Remittances Raise New Issues

How Are Remittances Used?

The third area of "existing knowledge" concerns the use to which remittance flows are put by migrants' families and more generally in countries of origin. Here, a longstanding literature has suggested that remittances are too often put to "unproductive uses" – satisfying basic consumption needs, buying medicines, building a house for the migrant's retirement, or spending on "conspicuous consumption" in festivals and funerals as well as daily life – although such expenses can have a number of multiplier effects in the local economy (Russell and Teitelbaum 1992). Where remittances are invested in businesses, all too often these are seen as small-scale, at the margins of profitability, and concentrated in the retail and services sectors. Here, existing policy interest has focused on providing incentives for migrants to invest in "productive" activity, including special funds and instruments, investment breaks, loans, as well as training in entrepreneurship skills, and the promotion of trust, leadership, and transparency.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/08/remittances-and-growth

Adolfo Barajas of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) finds with his co-authors in an IMF Working Paper that:

"Decades of private income transfers—remittances—have contributed little to economic growth in remittance-receiving economies...the most persuasive evidence in support of this finding is the lack of a single example of a remittances success story: a country in which remittances-led growth contributed significantly to its development...no nation can credibly claim that remittances have funded or catalyzed significant economic development."

Economic Impact of Migrants and Remittances | Economics Help

As a percentage of GDP, the top recipients of remittances in 2011 were

1. Tajikistan (47%),
2. Liberia (31%),
3. Kyrgyz Republic (29%),
4. Lesotho (27%),
5. Moldova (23%)
6. Nepal (22%)

Certainly no economic giant there.

Unatamba kwamba unahemea zaidi?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Iconoclastes]

"You have failed to explained" is ungrammatical. "You have failed to explain" is the correct grammar. You have failed grammar.



"An underlying internal economic" should be followed by "problem", not problems. An is singular, not plural.

I have stated that a remittance recipient country has little control over the remittance, the source country has control. If you do not see that as a fundamental problem we have a fundamental difference.



We are talking about Kenya here, why would we talk about the US? We are talking about remittances here, why would we talk about tourism?

I am sorry for the typos and the grammatical blunders. That is quite normal when typing out in a rush and u have little time to counter-check. That however should provide u no reason to deviate from topic at hand.

 

[Kiranga]

I am sorry for the typos and the grammatical blunders. That is quite normal when typing out in a rush and u have little time to counter-check. That however should provide u no reason to deviate from topic at hand.

When you label my correction as deviation from teh topic that negates your saying that you are sorry.

Moreover, your said deviation is more imaginary than real. I did not stop with the grammatical corrections. I went on to address your raised objections.

Did you read?

 

[Iconoclastes]

When you label my correction as deviation from teh topic that negates your saying that you are sorry.

Moreover, your said deviation is more imaginary than real. I did not stop with the grammatical corrections. I went on to address your raised objections.

Did you read?

This is the comment I was reponding to

"You have failed to explained" is ungrammatical. "You have failed to explain" is the correct grammar. You have failed grammar.



"An underlying internal economic" should be followed by "problem", not problems. An is singular, not plural.

I have stated that a remittance recipient country has little control over the remittance, the source country has control. If you do not see that as a fundamental problem we have a fundamental difference.



We are talking about Kenya here, why would we talk about the US? We are talking about remittances here, why would we talk about tourism?



I posted that apology before u rushed to make that extensive amend to your comment.........

 

[Livale]

Nchi kutegemea remittances sana ni dalili ya udhaifu wa uchumi wake wa ndani. Inaonekana watu wanahemea kwa walioko nje.

Now now, $0.861bn to a $66bn economy is hardly a sign of dependence on remittances. Infact it even pales when you consider Kenya's mpesa money circulating within the country stands at $56bn, and this is mostly in service to those excluded from conventional banking hence not the well off per se.

Then we must understand the source of this remittance. As much as a huge number of Kenyans live in the US, Europe and the ilk, a very large number of them are in the neighborhood I.e, Eastern Africa. These are in business and their remittances are mostly 'investment' such as buying land, building homes and fees and other necessary expenses for their family. Their closeness means say monthly or several times a year they'll be back home cross checking progress of their 'projects'

 

[Iconoclastes]

"You have failed to explained" is ungrammatical. "You have failed to explain" is the correct grammar. You have failed grammar.



"An underlying internal economic" should be followed by "problem", not problems. An is singular, not plural.

I have stated that a remittance recipient country has little control over the remittance, the source country has control. If you do not see that as a fundamental problem we have a fundamental difference.



We are talking about Kenya here, why would we talk about the US? We are talking about remittances here, why would we talk about tourism?



Can you show the data?


Data please.



Data please.



Soaring Remittances Raise New Issues

How Are Remittances Used?

The third area of "existing knowledge" concerns the use to which remittance flows are put by migrants' families and more generally in countries of origin. Here, a longstanding literature has suggested that remittances are too often put to "unproductive uses" – satisfying basic consumption needs, buying medicines, building a house for the migrant's retirement, or spending on "conspicuous consumption" in festivals and funerals as well as daily life – although such expenses can have a number of multiplier effects in the local economy (Russell and Teitelbaum 1992). Where remittances are invested in businesses, all too often these are seen as small-scale, at the margins of profitability, and concentrated in the retail and services sectors. Here, existing policy interest has focused on providing incentives for migrants to invest in "productive" activity, including special funds and instruments, investment breaks, loans, as well as training in entrepreneurship skills, and the promotion of trust, leadership, and transparency.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/08/remittances-and-growth

Adolfo Barajas of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) finds with his co-authors in an IMF Working Paper that:

"Decades of private income transfers—remittances—have contributed little to economic growth in remittance-receiving economies...the most persuasive evidence in support of this finding is the lack of a single example of a remittances success story: a country in which remittances-led growth contributed significantly to its development...no nation can credibly claim that remittances have funded or catalyzed significant economic development."

Economic Impact of Migrants and Remittances | Economics Help

As a percentage of GDP, the top recipients of remittances in 2011 were

1. Tajikistan (47%),
2. Liberia (31%),
3. Kyrgyz Republic (29%),
4. Lesotho (27%),
5. Moldova (23%)
6. Nepal (22%)

Certainly no economic giant there.

Unatamba kwamba unahemea zaidi?

Nobody denies that remittances have their downside, okay. So are all the other sectors of the economy that help our countries earn their revenues. Why are u only bent on painting this one sector on negative light like this? Is it bcos it is Kenya that has emerged the leading? Would u have been this critical had it been Tanzania?
By and large, this sector has offered many positive contributions to the economies of the developing countries, including Kenya, and those positive contributions do in fact outweigh the negative effects u have pointed out above.

Recently, we posted a thread here about Kenya leading in the region in terms number of tourists and earnings, but your countrymen came up with all sorts of comments disparaging the Kenyan tourism sector, posting links about children being sexually exploited by these tourists at the coastal tourist resorts. yeah, tourism too has its drawbacks......they are many. I can highlight them here. But what should we do? Can we afford to terminate it?

Yet it is the same Tanzanias that had just recently rejoiced over the security challenges Kenya was going thru, and had predicted that tourists and the foriegn investors would shift their interest from Kenya to Tanzania. And speaking of Foreign investments, the same same Tanzanians had claimed that the foreign investors in Kenya are draining our country dry, by repatriating the proceeds of their activities here to their countries.
Your inconsistent opinions regarding this issues reek of jealousy to us.

What about mining? The sector is said to be earning handsome revenues to your country Tanzania for example. But what benefits has it had for the pipo on the ground? That that country in this decade should still be described as one of world's poorest and least developed? What is Tanzania doing with all that revenue it grosses from mining?
Well, and now that u dont have much foreign remittances compared to Kenya, is your country better off in any way than Kenya?

Everything positive touching on Kenya must be deflated by u Tanzanians on this forum and elsewhere. We Kenyans are all used to that

This is a study about bthe impact of the (international) remittances to the Kenyan economy and its pipo; both the good and the bad: The Effect of International Remittances on Economic Growth in Kenya




FYI, had claimed that these "economic dwarfs" are the world's largest recipients of remittances,:

As a percentage of GDP, the top recipients of remittances in 2011 were

1. Tajikistan (47%),
2. Liberia (31%),
3. Kyrgyz Republic (29%),
4. Lesotho (27%),
5. Moldova (23%)
6. Nepal (22%)

However, my quick research has exposed that those are in fact the top recipients countries, as per the percentage of their GDP! That doesnt necessarily make them the largest recipients for heavens sake!

In fact the (almost consistent) TOP recipients of foreign remittances in the past 5years from 2011 are the following

Among the emerging nations

.
.
.
.
.

Among the developed nations

Besides, do u have the data to prove that in those countries u have listed above, there have been absolutely no positive impacts foreign remittances have brought about?

And I forbid u from correcting my grammar.

 

[Kiranga]

Nobody denies that remittances have their downside, okay. So are all the other sectors of the economy that help our countries earn their revenues. Why are u only bent on painting this one sector on negative light like this? Is it bcos it is Kenya that has emerged the leading? Would u have been this critical had it been Tanzania?
By and large, this sector has offered many positive contributions to the economies of the developing countries, including Kenya, and those positive contributions do in fact outweigh the negative effects u have pointed out above.

Recently, we posted a thread here about Kenya leading in the region in terms number of tourists and earnings, but your countrymen came up with all sorts of comments disparaging the Kenyan tourism sector, posting links about children being sexually exploited by these tourists at the coastal tourist resorts. yeah, tourism too has its drawbacks......they are many. I can highlight them here. But what should we do? Can we afford to terminate it?

Yet it is the same Tanzanias that had just recently rejoiced over the security challenges Kenya was going thru, and had predicted that tourists and the foriegn investors would shift their interest from Kenya to Tanzania. And speaking of Foreign investments, the same same Tanzanians had claimed that the foreign investors in Kenya are draining our country dry, by repatriating the proceeds of their activities here to their countries.
Your inconsistent opinions regarding this issues reek of jealousy to us.

What about mining? The sector is said to be earning handsome revenues to your country Tanzania for example. But what benefits has it had for the pipo on the ground? That that country in this decade should still be described as one of world's poorest and least developed? What is Tanzania doing with all that revenue it grosses from mining?
Well, and now that u dont have much foreign remittances compared to Kenya, is your country better off in any way than Kenya?

Everything positive touching on Kenya must be deflated by u Tanzanians on this forum and elsewhere. We Kenyans are all used to that

This is a study about bthe impact of the (international) remittances to the Kenyan economy and its pipo; both the good and the bad: The Effect of International Remittances on Economic Growth in Kenya




FYI, had claimed that these "economic dwarfs" are the world's largest recipients of remittances,:


However, my quick research has exposed that those are in fact the top recipients countries, as per the percentage of their GDP! That doesnt necessarily make them the largest recipients for heavens sake!

In fact the (almost consistent) TOP recipients of foreign remittances in the past 5years from 2011 are the following

Among the emerging nations

.
.
.
.
.

Among the developed nations

Besides, do u have the data to prove that in those countries u have listed above, there have been absolutely no positive impacts foreign remittances have brought about?

And I forbid u from correcting my grammar.

By which authority do you forbid me from correcting your grammar?

If this forum is not about correcting each other and learning, what is it about then?

 

[Iconoclastes]

It's only a"tongue in cheek" remark, Kiranga. Ofcos we are at liberty here to point out the errors in our statements.
Why, u sound a lot like Kimweri. The nuances in your grammar...strikingly similar.