Finally we consider the broader impacts of the RSE on the sending communities. The most direct impact is through the monetary contribution that migrants make to their communities, either through remitting to a community group while abroad or contributing some of their repatriated earnings to this group upon return. We asked return migrants how much they had contributed in this way to the community. The mean response aggregated over the two years was 157 pa’anga in Tonga and 11733 vatu in Vanuatu – or approximately US$80-130 per migrant. Our expenditure module also collected expenditure on community obligations, but only for a recall period of one month, thereby likely missing one-off contributions made by migrants upon return. The difference-in-differences regression then gives a positive, but insignificant impact on this item.

To further gauge the impacts at the community level, we conducted surveys of community leaders. This was done at baseline and at the time of the second round survey in Vanuatu, and at baseline and at the times of the third and fourth round surveys in Tonga. These data are thus less useful for Vanuatu, since they only measure immediate effects while most workers were still away. The Tongan surveys reveal the mean (median) community saying it received 633 (500) pa’anga from RSE workers, which is consistent with the community surveys giving a median of 5 workers per village participating coupled with the amounts reported by workers. The main use of this fund in 83% of cases in Tonga was funding the village water supply in the first year. In the second year, villages were also using this for street lighting, a school scholarship fund, community halls, and in one case, adding internet to a community hall.

Village leaders were directly asked the main benefit and main disadvantages of the RSE for their community. In Vanuatu this was only asked in wave 2, 6 months into the RSE. The main benefits reported at this stage were job opportunities for people in the village, money to support the village church, and improvements in housing. Disadvantages were less people to do the community work, cases where a worker is not contributing to church or family, and concerns about the potential bad influence of alcohol abroad. In Tonga these questions were asked in waves 3 and 4, approximately one year and two years into the RSE. The main benefit reported at one year is income for families, along with some saying income for the community and church donations. After two years, there are also a few mentions of improved skills and improved English in the workers, and positive impacts on school enrolments. When asked the main disadvantage, at one year, more than half say none, the main other answer being family separation. At two years, one-third say family separation, 30 percent say less labor for village, church, and community projects, about 15 percent say fewer members for church activities.

Table 6 then summarizes the results of questions in both the household and community leader surveys intended to measure qualitatively the impressions of the broader community-level impacts of the RSE. The RSE workers themselves believe that participation in the RSE either improved or left unchanged their family and community life. Non-RSE households in Tonga also see benefits in terms of community life, availability of paid jobs, and schooling opportunities. To 20