They are the migrants workers sending money back to their families. Many of them are often the cleaners, mini-cab drivers and waiters serving the developed world economies. Something that has only recently been acknowledged by the World Bank and the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK but not by the international development NGOs like Oxfam.

Migrants around the world send home $167 billion each year -- with £2.7 billion coming from Britain alone last year -- this has grown so quickly that according to the World Bank it is now more than twice the size of the world's development spending. The World Bank calls this migration "a powerful force for poverty reduction" with the money coming from an estimated 200 million people now living in countries where they were not born.

DFID recognises that these remittances are hugely important for people on low incomes in the developing countries and this money plays a huge role in promoting international development and fighting poverty. This puts into context who's doing what for the developing world and because it is not sexy enough it's the untold story of international development.

And by doing two things we can make this money work even harder for the developing countries. Firstly, as the World Bank and DFID emphasise, we can reduce the high cost of sending money "back home" and secondly, the developed world could give tax relief so that their international development contributions match their remittances -- given that they are addressing poverty better then our aid programs are.

In recent times there has been concern over the alleged security surrounding the unofficial flows. But what better way to make these flows official than by giving tax relief breaks which don't involve a lot of bureaucracy.

Moreover these flows are often greater than the official flows of aid. In 2004-5 the UK's Bangladeshi community sent back almost £300 million -- largely in response to floods in August. That's more then twice the official aid that flows from the UK to Bangladesh, and that pattern is repeated time and again across other ethnic communities in the developed world.

But the UK Bangladeshis are only one part of the story. It is estimated that 2 million Bangladeshis live and work outside the country and send back $3.8 billion. Furthermore the migrants remittances have been historically larger than the elusive business investment into the country. The formal flows of almost $4 billion in 2004 was some 6 per cent of GDP and more than 3 times greater than foreign aid.

The World Bank Annual Global Economic Prospects Report of 2006 suggests that remittance inflows into Ghana have helped cut its poverty level by 5 per cent, Bangladesh by 6 per cent, and Uganda by 11 per cent. In addition, remittances appear to help households maintain their consumption levels in the face of economic shocks and adversity. Remittances help increase household income, provide investment in education and health and bolster entrepreneurship. It's not surprising to see that two of the biggest recipients of remittances in the world at present are the world's next two economic superpowers, India and China, with both receiving just over $20 billion annually.

The questions this poses is how to make it easier and cheaper to send back monies and how can we match these flows in official aid budgets, particularly as they are known to directly cut poverty and contribute to emerging economies.

But there is another side to the coin, what are developing countries receiving the remittances doing? Well if you look at the third biggest recipient of remittances, Mexico with just over $18 billion coming annually, predominately from the US, the government at both the national and federal levels is matching their contributions dollar for dollar. So every dollar sent from the US, gets another $2 dollars from the Mexican government, particularly in infrastructural investment like roads.

In the meantime, the Indian Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs, Oscar Fernandes is giving voting rights for overseas citizens of India on a new basis, overseas citizenship though not dual citizenships. This would give 1.5 million Indians in the UK political rights in India and making them a force to reckon with which the Indian government welcome, as the Indians appreciate that is not a zero sum game and will greatly help the investment climate in their economy. It will offer them the right to invest in property in India, which is barred and least we forget, visa stickers on their foreign passport allowing them lifelong visa-free travel to India.

Despite or maybe because of political stunts in the developed world nothing much changes, as evidenced from the G8 summit in Edinburgh on debt, aid and trade. The campaigners wanted the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries cancelled. But in reality the debt relief between now and 2008 will go to Iraq and Nigeria.

The campaign urged £29 billion more aid per year. Within months the US said it was unsure it would commit itself and European finance ministers also backtracked, especially France and Italy. And as for trade, it became clear at the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong that the main trading blocs are years away from agreeing a deal to cut subsidies and lower tariffs for the poorest countries in the world.

But as many developing countries governments now know, the people you can really rely on to dig deep into their pockets are the migrant workers. This puts in context, who's actually doing what for the developing world.

Cllr Murad Qureshi AM is a councilor in the London Assembly.