Table 2 shows the sample means and standard deviations for a selection of socio-economic and demographic variables used in this study, and thus identifies some of the key characteristics of the sample. The names and definitions of the variables are as follows: Household income level, expressed in 1994 Australian dollars, after tax, as declared by the head of household for the 12 month period preceding the survey (INCOME);

(i) Whether the birthplace of the household head was in Tonga (as opposed to Samoa) (TONGAN);

(ii) Whether the household remitted to their country of origin during the 12 month period preceding the survey, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (REMITTER);

(iii) Household remittances in all forms, expressed in 1994 Australian dollars as declared by the head of household for the 12 month period preceding the survey (TOTREM);

(iv) Household remittances as a percentage of household income, expressed as a percentage (REMPROP);

(v) whether the head of household owned land in his or her country of origin, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (LAND);

(vi) whether the head of household owned non-land assets in his or her country of origin, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (OWNOVS);

(vii) whether the head of household owned assets to the value of at least $A5000 in Australia, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (OWNAUS);

(viii) Age of household head in years (AGEHOH);

(ix) Age of nurse in years (NURSEAGE);

(x) Gender of nurse (SEXNURSE);

(xi) whether the head of household is married, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (MARRIED)

(xii) whether the head of household and/or spouse still have at least one living parent in country of origin, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (PARENT);

(xiii) Whether the nurse is the stated household head (NURSEHOH);

(xiv) whether the head of household is married with spouse still in the home country, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (SPOUSE);

(xv) whether the household had received house-guests to stay during the preceding 12 months, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (VISITOR);

(xvi) The number of persons living in the household (HOUSNUM).

(xvii) whether the head of household intended to return to his or her country of origin, 1 if yes otherwise 0 (INTENT);

(xviii) the number of months since the migrant first emigrated (ABSENCE);

The nurse was the stated household head in 30.7% of the nurse households. The average nurse household size was 4.2 persons, very similar to the mean size of other households of 4.3. The average age of the nurses was 36.9 years, in comparison with 40.6 years for other respondents; 95.4% were women and 86.9% were married. (Some 5.5% were married but not living in the same country as their spouse, who was therefore outside Australia, in comparison with 8.7% for other households.) On average, nurse households had spent 11.5 years living abroad, compared with 9.3 years for others. A higher proportion of nurse households (16.4%) stated that it was their intention to return home, in comparison with others (12.4%).

Nurse households enjoyed significantly higher mean incomes than other households, A$37,604 compared with A$29,968. A higher proportion held significant assets in Australia, 38.6% compared with 25.2%, and a higher proportion also held significant assets in their country of birth, 43.8% compared with 37.9%. A higher proportion of nurse households owned land in their country of birth: 42.5% compared with 35.1%. In terms of family ties to the country of birth, a significantly higher proportion of nurse households had hosted visitors from home in the last year, 33.3% compared with 26.2% of all households. The identical proportion of nurse and other households (60.8%) had at least one living parent or parent-in-law still living in their country of birth.

That nurse households earned significantly higher incomes than other migrant households could reflect the occupational status of their spouses. However, as the data in Table 3 show, this is clearly not the case for either nurse heads of household (HOH) or non-heads.

Indeed, over 50% of nurses' spouses were unskilled labourers and only 8.4% of nurses' spouses had the equivalent status to that of a nurse (i.e. managerial/professional category). There is therefore good reason to assume that income and remittance levels of nurse households reflect the income levels of nurses rather than that of their spouses.

Remittances can take different forms, some of which are not accounted for in the official balance of payments remittance estimates in either the sending or receiving country. Remittances are defined here as including the following forms of international resource transfer by the migrant household to households or other individuals and organisations overseas:

(i) money transfers sent via the formal banking system to households;

(ii) money transferred informally in cash (bills) or via an informal agent to households;

(iii) the value (in Australia) of all goods sent to households;

(iv) payments made by the migrant on behalf of households;

(v) donations by the migrant to other institutions or organisations; and,

(vi) deposits made into bank accounts held by the migrant overseas.

Migrant transfers in-kind, mainly in the form of goods are usually sent to households as "gifts" or "personal effects", are often not recorded as imports and escape any duties. A significant amount of these end-up in informal sector flea-markets 12. Most such transfers would therefore be unrecorded, either as remittances or as imports, in the balance of payments statistics. Migrants also remit to other institutions and organisations, mainly churches 131415. Donations are often collected by the churches in the host countries and are held in bank accounts there, to be transferred overseas or used to settle international payments on behalf of the church in the country of origin. If these transactions show up at all in the balance of payments records, they will not appear as migrants remittances.

Migrants sometimes also make payments on behalf of relatives or others in their country of origin. These consist of payments for services such as insurance premiums paid to Australian or New Zealand-based companies, schooling and other educational expenses or, most commonly, payments for international airfares made directly to the airlines. In most instances these airfares enabled relatives to visit the migrants in their host countries. This usually also implies that all other travel costs and living expenses are born by the migrant. These too should be treated as effective "remittances" to the country of origin as they amount to foreign exchange transfers from the migrants to overseas residents for international travel. Such payments would appear neither as current account receipts nor as payments for overseas travel.

Finally, migrants also transfer money to their country of origin for the purpose of acquiring assets there on their own behalf 1617. These could be financial savings deposits with banks, or other physical assets such as land, housing, farm equipment and supplies, inventories for small businesses, and so on. These transfers can be made directly and via the formal network, but are often undertaken indirectly via a third party or agent on an informal basis. The questionnaire was designed to capture all these diverse forms of remittances.

A range of characteristics can be expected to affect a migrant's remittance behaviour. Unfortunately, as Lucas and Stark noted almost two decades ago, it largely remains true that 'there is surprisingly little statistical evidence on the motives for remitting, and the few studies that have appeared are not couched in terms of testable hypotheses derived from a theoretical framework.' 18. It is therefore necessary to rely on a limited amount of empirical and theoretical work to identify possible variables for inclusion in a more formal, multivariate regression model.

Two closely related motivational characteristics that stand out in other studies of Pacific island migrants are the strength of the migrant's ties to the home versus host community, and the migrant's intentions to return. Variables related to these which other studies have found to be significant include, (a) whether permanent residence had been gained (which, it could be argued, influences the probability of return migration); and, (b) whether former dependents had joined the migrants living overseas 1920. Brown 1011 found that the presence of a surviving parent or spouse in the home country increased the migrant's propensity to remit, while the larger the number of dependents of the migrant living in Australia, the less likely the migrant was to be remitting. Where both determining factors had occurred, remittances were virtually non-existent 21. Generally, as in the case of Fijians in Sydney 22, the level and regularity of remittances was found to be a positive function of intent to return. This is also well documented in the case of Tongans and Cook Islanders overseas 23.

Consequently migration decisions are shaped within a family context. Migrants leave to meet certain family expectations, one of which is the supply of remittances. A previous study showed that almost two-thirds of nurse migrants indicated that the opportunity to earn a higher income was a major reason for migration 24. There is an expectation that migration will benefit extended households and even villages. Though greater ease of migration and a growing familiarity with external affairs have been amongst the factors contributing to an increase in individual, rather than family or lineage, decision-making, these expectations remain valid. Overall migration is directed at improving both the living standards of those who remain at home and the lifestyle and income of the migrants. More specifically, in rural areas and home islands, as in Tonga, 'migration and remittances...are perceived solely as means for improving family incomes and welfare rather than for direct or indirect national economic development' 19. Migration has rarely been an individual decision to meet individual goals, nor has it been dictated by national interests.

The underlying economic rationale of migration is reflected in the household organisation of migration. Families in many respects operate on a world stage, so that the 'international scale of family operations, still tied to kin at home...would equal or exceed in value the Tongan national product' 25. Extending from this notion Bertram has suggested that Tongan (and other similar) households are characterised 'by remittance transfers among various component parts of the 'transnational corporations of kin' which direct the allocation of each island's family labour around the regional economy' 26. Similarly Tongan 'families deliberate carefully about which members would be most likely to do well overseas and be reliable in sending remittances' 2728 although there is, seemingly paradoxically, an accompanying shift towards individualism 29. While all such statements have been made in the most general sense, and often on the basis of small undifferentiated samples, there is no reason to suppose that they do not apply to skilled workers, and hence to nurses. Indeed the evidence of the present analysis suggests that they almost certainly do apply to nurses.

As family ties are important determinants of remittances, it is sometimes mistakenly believed that migrants are unlikely to remit for purposes other than altruism, where altruism is perceived as transfers for purposes of family consumption support. However, others have suggested that migrants' remittances are motivated by additional factors that could offset any weakening of such altruistic motives. Stark 3031 and Lucas and Stark 18, for instance, have argued that migration decisions are best understood as part of the family's risk reduction or 'family co-insurance arrangement' which they liken to the portfolio-investment strategy of a firm and in which there is an intertemporal contractual agreement between the migrant and 'home' 3233. They argue that remittances are often a repayment of the expenditure by family on the migrant's education and are thus directly related to the migrant's educational level. Households may even consciously persuade and sponsor various members to migrate as insurance in times of hardship, and in anticipation of eventual repayment. Poirine 34 and Brown and Poirine 35 take this argument a step further, arguing that remittances often constitute part of an informal loan agreement between the migrant and non-migrant family members, through which the investment in the migrant's human capital is financed (the loan) and later repaid by the working migrant (the remittances). After the loan is repaid the migrant sometimes becomes a source of loan finance for investment in the education of the next generation of non-migrants, implying no tendency for remittances to decay.

Self-interest can also play a part in the migrants' decision-making framework, either in terms of inheritance-seeking behaviour or as a rational investment. From studies of migrants in Botswana, India and the Philippines, Stark 3031 found evidence of remittances which were motivated by 'tempered altruism or enlightened self-interest'. He suggested that 'considerations such as an aspiration to inherit, maintenance of rural investments, and the intentions to return mean that the migrant retains a vested interest in his original home beyond altruism' 31. An inheritance seeker will continue to remit in order to stay in favour with family.

Migration and remittances also sometimes motivated by 'target saving', where migrants retain much of their savings with them in the host country, only remitting their accumulated savings on, or over a period of time shortly before, their final return 3337. In such cases the remittance profile would be positively sloped over the latter part of the migrant's stay. Thus for overseas Pakistanis, where the probability of returning was extremely high, remittance levels did not decline 38. Especially where a migrant is intending to return home to retire, remittances of accumulated savings would not necessarily take the form of one lump-sum transfer at the end of the migrant's period of absence, but still be concentrated over a number of years prior to the migrant's retirement. Stark 30 and Macpherson 39 have suggested that, in this case, migrants will transfer savings into long-term assets such as land, housing or livestock, and possibly other community or "social" assets with a view to enhancing their prestige or political influence in the 'home' community. Remittance behaviour that is motivated by this form of investment may continue independently of altruistic family consumption support.

In other contexts migrants sometimes evolve into small entrepreneurs. Studies in the Caribbean Basin countries found strong links between remittances and small business development in the remittance-receiving countries, that were indicative of at least some investment-motivated behaviour 40 In at least one Punjabi village there has been an evolution of remittance use beyond altruistic family support into a 'business investment stage' 41. For both Samoa and Tonga migrants are motivated to remit for reasons of saving and investment 15. Remittances in kind and the practice of selling remitted goods as part of an informal international business operation are also an important aspect of remittances by Tongan migrants 12. Such behaviour emphasises the economic role of the Pacific transnational corporation of kin. In another study, using an econometric analysis of secondary data on savings and real interest rate differentials, Tongan and Samoan migrants' remittances were responsive to financial incentives in the remittance-receiving countries 42. This suggests that remittances serve as a source of loanable funds and are potentially responsive to changes in interest rate differentials.

Gender plays an important role in remittances. Virtually without exception, where there are data, women tend to be more frequent remitters, although they may lack the earnings capacity to send the same amount as men. In a number of places, including Samoa, women are specifically referred to as the most reliable remitters 43. Amongst Auckland Tongans non-remitters were much more likely to be males; although the average sum sent by men was higher than that of women, the latter sent 15% of their net income, compared with men, who sent 11% 44. The same kind of situation occurs in other Polynesian contexts and has been attributed to Polynesian social structures, with women having greater responsibility for the maintenance of the household. Women are argued to have a much better understanding of household needs throughout the Pacific 22 and are more likely to respond to those perceived needs. It might therefore be expected that nurses, who are predominantly female, will be more reliable senders of remittances.

There is also some evidence from another study of Pacific island nurses that would suggest that nurses are more likely to be altruistically inclined than others. A survey of Tongan and Samoan nurses within the Pacific 24 demonstrated that nurses displayed a higher level of altruism, in terms of why they entered the profession. Out of a sample of 34 Samoan nurses some 23 stated that they enjoyed being able to help people and 17 valued the opportunity to competently care for their families. Indeed, family was the main reason for nurses entering the profession, with 29 having entered in order to care for members of their family. From a similar sample of 30 nurses in Tonga, some 28 had entered the profession primarily to care for their families. In both Tonga and Samoa income was not a primary consideration for choice of occupation. While these samples are obviously different from the migrant nurses discussed here, it is unlikely that migrant nurses are less altruistically inclined.

Irrespective of what motivates remittances, the propensity to remit and the level are influenced by the capacity of migrants to save. This depends largely on the migrant's income and net wealth situation, taking into account the number of dependents in the migrant household. In the empirical sections that follow an attempt is made to analyse Tongan and Samoan migrants' remittances in terms of a number of characteristics identified here as most likely to affect their motivation and capacity to remit.

There has always been concern that remittances decline over time, in total and from particular households and individuals, due to lower migration rates, recession and a decrease in migrants' willingness to remit 444647482959. An important issue in the present context is whether per capita remittance levels will decline as the nurses' length of absence increases and ties to their countries of origin weaken. Furthermore it has been suggested that, even with continued migration, the anticipated decline in remittance rates is likely to occur due to family reunification and greater integration of the migrants in the host communities. This process, it is argued, reduces migrants' ability and willingness to remit: ability because of the increased number of dependents now living in the migrants' households, and willingness because of fewer kinship ties at home. Since migration by Pacific islanders is generally long-term, it would then follow that the aggregate level of remittances will also decline over time, unless the rate of new migration is sufficient to offset declining average remittance levels among the stock of "older" migrants.

A belief in remittance decay at the level of the individual migrant is perhaps to be expected. The longer the migrant is away, social ties and distant perceptions of needs and wants are likely to decline. Successful migrants may be followed by others from the same family with perhaps greater commitment. Initial savings targets (where they existed) may have been met and investment in the host, rather than source, country seem to be more rational as the probability of return declines. Although migrants face a life cycle of obligations to their home areas, these obligations are likely to lose their immediacy, to compete with new obligations and to be increasingly ignored. Samoan migrants who are seemingly permanent residents overseas are under less pressure to remit as their village commitments become less intense and less significant 43 and they acquire financial commitments in their host country. On the other hand it has been suggested that the peculiarities of the 'complex inter-relationships and social obligation patterns of the islanders' could imply a continuation of remittances by permanent migrants over the longer term, albeit at possibly lower levels 50.

Advocates of the remittance decay hypothesis in the Pacific draw support for their arguments mainly from studies of migrants in other countries. Thus Forsyth's 3 study postulated a remittance decay function for the South Pacific based largely on evidence from an OECD study of remittance behaviour in Europe 51. The longer the duration of the migrants' stay abroad, and the greater the associated decline in the number of dependents at 'home', the weaker migrants' motivations to remit are assumed to become, hence sustained high rates of remittance tend to be characteristic of migrants who intend staying in the host [country] for a relatively brief period and then returning home.... But such rates are unlikely to be sustained if the period of residence is extended ... [which] suggests a profile over time ... with remittances reaching a peak soon after arrival in the host country then gradually declining 3.

However other studies have found little evidence of remittance decay. Standing 52 cited three studies of Indian migrants which revealed that the level of their remittances did not decline with time, but rather plateaued at a positive and constant level.

Until recently there as been only limited data on which to conduct further investigation, beyond simple extrapolations based on unreliable, secondary time series data and other evidence of a more anecdotal nature. Remarkably little is known about Pacific island migrant communities in Australia and elsewhere, in terms of demography, education and occupation levels, socio-economic status, and their remittance behaviour and its correlates. Since remittances can take many forms, including informal transfers in cash or in-kind, and can pass through many different channels and networks, there are clear obstacles to making definitive assessments of remittance behaviour. This is not to deny the importance of other work that has been attempted in recent years. Unfortunately, the available data remain fragmentary and often inadequate for statistical analysis. Most existing studies were undertaken on small sample surveys among particular pockets of Pacific island migrants, where the sample size was constrained by limited budgets. Consequently, previous studies have failed to produce data sets large enough for rigorous statistical analysis. Nonetheless Vete 21 found that for Tongans in New Zealand there was a correlation between the number of dependents in Tonga and the amount of remittances. Broadly the same pattern was found amongst Tongans in Sydney. The level of remittances increased during the first few years of migration, up to around seven years, but then began to decline, although migrants who had been in Australia for more than 18 years still sent remittances 19. On the other hand, Loomis found little evidence of remittance decay among Cook Islanders in New Zealand 23. All of these studies were both based on small samples which cannot be considered statistically reliable, and relied on cross-tabulations which did not isolate the effects of other variables from the effect of the migrant's duration of absence.

From the same survey data that this present study uses, Brown subjected the remittance-decay hypothesis to rigorous empirical investigation 1011. Remittance decay was examined empirically at two levels. First, time profiles of average remittance levels and propensities were constructed from estimates for different cohorts of migrants, based on the number of years since first migrating. These descriptive statistics are presented here in tabular and graphical form. Second, a remittance function was estimated for each migrant community, using appropriate econometric techniques, and which attempts to separate the effect of time from all other influences on remittance behaviour.

These studies found little evidence to support the remittance decay hypothesis; that is the survey data did not indicate a significant decline in remittances the longer the time period that migrants spent away from home. This is important, as it indicates that there is no need for the numbers of new migrants to continually increase to maintain the same level of remittances to the island economies. It is therefore worth testing whether the same holds for nurse households. This is tested first, in the following results section, using descriptive data and plots of mean remittance levels against migrants' length of absence from home, and then using appropriate econometric methods.

The length of absence of the migrant from home is covered by three variables:

(i) the number of months since the migrant first emigrated, which if significant and negative would indicate underlying remittance decay (TIME);

(ii) to allow for a non-linear (quadratic) relationship TIME squared is included (TIME2)

(iii) as the variable PARENT is likely to capture some of the effects of time away, with the likelihood of a surviving parent decreasing with the passage of time, an interaction variable with PARENT and TIME was also included (PARTIME)

A generalized Tobit model using a Heckman two-stage sample selection method was used to estimate remittances, as the dependent variable (REMITTANCES) is a mixture of discrete (zero remittances) and continuous (positive remittances) parts and is therefore censored at zero. The main purpose of the generalized Tobit regression analysis used here is: (i) to identify which of the variables are most significant determinants of remittance behaviour, where remittance behaviour consists of two elements; whether or not to remit, and, if so, how much to remit; and, (ii) to measure the effect on remittance levels, in monetary terms, of changes in the most significant migrant characteristics. The dependent variable in the regression model is the value of remittances in 1994 Australian dollars over the 12-month period preceding the survey.

The model and the regression results from the earlier analysis for the whole sample are reported in detail in Brown 1011. In these studies it was found that migrants with higher income, a parent or spouse at home, or who hosted a visitor from home during the year, remitted more, confirming that remittance behaviour is affected by both supply and demand-side variables. It was also found that migrants who intend to return remit more than those who do not. On the demand side it is evident that remittances are positively related to the existence of a surviving parent or spouse in the migrant's home country, and to the variable VISITOR which is a proxy for the strength of ties to the home community. No evidence was found of remittance decay (the time away from home variables were not significant).

As the purpose of this model is to compare the behaviour of one sub-group, nurses, with the rest of the sample, each variable was interacted with the variable NURSE to gauge the significance and extent of any differences between nurses and others in relation to remittance behaviour (i.e. NINCOME, NTIM, NTONGA, etc). The results of the regression model are reported in Table 5.