Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20
Co-creation of transnational livelihoods through
‘door-to- door’ shipping operations along the
Ghana-UK migration corridor
Geraldine Asiwome Adiku & Leander Kandilige
To cite this article: Geraldine Asiwome Adiku & Leander Kandilige (2021): Co-creation of
transnational livelihoods through ‘door-to- door’ shipping operations along the Ghana-UK migration
corridor, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2021.1901674
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1901674
Published online: 02 Apr 2021.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 165
View related articles 
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjms20
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1901674
Co-creation of transnational livelihoods through ‘door-to-
door’ shipping operations along the Ghana-UK migration
corridor
Geraldine Asiwome Adikua and Leander Kandiligeb
aDepartment of Sociology, University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana; bCentre for Migration Studies,
University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
Transnational approaches have led to conceptualisations of Received 19 February 2020
migration as a phenomenon that is embedded within Accepted 8 March 2021
globalisation processes. Overwhelmingly, emphasis is placed on
the transnational connections migrants maintain with their KEYWORDSTransnational livelihood
relatives. Technological advancements have facilitated sustained strategies; transnational
communication, remittance transfers and return visits between migrant entrepreneurship;
migrants and their relatives. However, the role of shipping migrants; relatives; Ghana;
companies, as transnational actors based in destination countries UK
with partners in origin countries, that help migrants and their
relatives to co-create/maintain their livelihoods has been
overlooked. Drawing on data from Ghanaian migrants in the UK
who send in-kind remittances, their relatives in Ghana who
receive in-kind remittances, Ghanaian migrant-owned shipping
businesses in the UK and their partners in Ghana, this paper fills
that gap in the literature by discussing the operation of ‘door-to-
door’ shipping businesses as a type of crucial transnational
migrant entrepreneurship that empowers migrants from the
’Global South’ and their relatives to overcome transnational
livelihood making challenges.
Introduction
Migration has long been considered a viable livelihood making strategy of many in the
developing world (McDowell and De Haan 1997; Deshingkar and Start 2003; Thieme
2008; Cohen 2011; Pholphirul 2012). Many migrants send remittances to fulfil livelihood
obligations they have in the home country. Academic and policy discussions on remit-
tances focus overwhelmingly on financial remittances, relegating in-kind remittances
to the background (see for example De Bryun 2006; Maphosa 2007; Bladé 2011). In-
kind remittances are treated almost as an afterthought. They are, however, crucially
important for migrants and their relatives in their livelihood strategies. In-kind remit-
tances from migrants to their relatives ease the livelihood burdens on these relatives as
they do not have to spend money buying consumer goods, since these are provided by
the migrant. In this discussion, the concept of livelihood is operationalised as the act
of making a living as well as the processes adopted in improving the quality of lives. It
CONTACT Geraldine Asiwome Adiku gadiku@ug.edu.gh
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
includes people’s assets, capabilities and activities required to secure the necessities of life
(Chambers and Conway 1991). To that extent, livelihood strategies refer to activities
carefully undertaken by families to provide a means of living. This includes migration
which results in the sending of remittances (in this paper we focus on in-kind
remittances).
When in-kind remittances are discussed they are usually discussed together with mon-
etary remittances and mostly in a passing manner (see Quartey 2006; Ajilore and Ikihide
2012; Gueta and Sridi 2014). Such an approach obscures the specific and important con-
tributions that in-kind remittances make to the livelihood strategies of migrants from the
‘Global South’ and their relatives who stay behind. Access to material goods as a result of
migration has been known to enhance the social status and prestige of those who have
access to them (see Sana 2005; Cohen 2011; Nieswand 2014). Less discussed, however,
is the role enhanced social status, due to access to in-kind remittances has on liveli-
hood-making. Even less discussed and theorised are the businesses that facilitate the
movements of these transfers. In this paper, understanding and theorising the transfer
of in-kind remittances as part of livelihood making strategies in an African context
takes centre stage. Before the advent of transnational shipping businesses, African
migrants struggled to send in-kind remittances to their relatives. These businesses,
which we conceptualise as transnational migrant entrepreneurships are now indispensa-
ble in helping migrants and their relatives accomplish their transnational livelihood strat-
egies such as building houses, starting businesses and taking care of their families.
Transnational migrant entrepreneurship, a form of economic transnationalism (Guar-
nizo 2003) allows migrants and their relatives to achieve their economic targets without
giving up ties with their origin country or fully assimilating into the culture of the desti-
nation country (Jasso and Rozensweig 1990 cited in Portes, Guarnizo, and Haller 2002).
The transnational migrant entrepreneurships we discuss are ‘door-to-door’ shipping
companies that collect and ship goods from specific addresses in the UK and deliver
them to specific addresses in Ghana. Their activities facilitate transnational lifestyles of
migrants by enabling these migrants and their relatives in their country of origin to
undertake some projects, for example, to establish a business, build a home, cater for chil-
dren’s and relatives’ needs and accumulate social assets among others. This is because
‘door-to-door’ shipping operators ease the movement of goods from migrants to their
relatives.
Every transnational migrant entrepreneurship requires multiple interactions between
actors in more than one geographical location. In recent times, technology allows such
interactions to take place in real time. These ‘door-to-door’ businesses connect people:
agents, migrants, families and friends of migrants among others, across borders
through the sending and receiving of in-kind remittances. Following Vertovec’s (1999)
conceptualisation of transnational lifestyles as an avenue for capital formation, transna-
tional migrant entrepreneurship is a good example of how migrants use their multiple
ties to create economic capital through the use of their networks. These actions also
enhance the interconnectedness of multiple actors across diverse social fields.
The question at the heart of this paper is how do transnational migrant entrepreneur-
ships, set up by migrants from the ‘Global South’, assist their co-ethnics and their families
back home to meet their social obligations, overcome livelihood making challenges and
sustain transnational livelihoods? Literature suggests that some livelihood making
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 3
challenges in the ‘Global South’ include disappearing job prospects, lack of investments,
lack of access to assets or capitals such as financial, human, natural, physical and social
assets (Carney 1998; De Haan 2012; Francis 2019; Yendaw, Tanle, and Kumi-Kyereme
2019). This paper argues that ‘door-to-door’ operators make it possible for migrants
and their relatives to sustain transnational livelihoods. Their operations make it possible
for migrants to be virtually present to fulfil their transnational obligations and erode the
previously held assumption of the transfer of remittances being conditioned on the phys-
ical return of migrants.
The next section outlines our theoretical approach. We focus on the intersection of
transnational livelihood making between migrants and their relatives and transnational
migrant entrepreneurship. We then discuss our methodology, followed by our findings.
We conclude by discussing our contributions to the transnational theory.
Transnational livelihood strategies and transnational migrant
entrepreneurship
In a bid to develop more effective poverty alleviation strategies and policies, the liveli-
hood approach was developed. The livelihood approach, which evolved in the 1970s
but gained intense scholarly attention in the late 1990s and early 2000s focuses on
how poor people in ‘developing countries’ organise their lives by adopting a strategic
or deliberate choice of a combination of activities to maintain, secure and improve
their lives generally (Carney 1998). Rather than focus on their impoverishment, the
emphasis is on opportunities, their agency, their strategies, and the resources they
possess which enable them to make a living. According to De Haan (2012) these
resources or assets usually include human capital, natural capital, physical capital,
financial capital and social capital. These resources enable people to make a living and
also improve their wellbeing by substituting one for the other (Thieme 2008; De Haan
2012). For example, in instances where financial capital is unavailable, households may
utilise their social capital to achieve their livelihood goals. One of the common assets
that individuals from the ‘Global South’ draw on in the absence of financial assets is
their social assets or capital i.e. relations developed over the years with family, friends,
and acquaintances and what they can offer. This paper explores the agency of migrants
and their relatives by showing how these social assets use in-kind remittances to improve
their lives and also exhibit high standard of living. We show in this research that migrants
and their families use in-kind remittances to meet their livelihood making goals in a
structural context where such goods are highly regarded and enhance the social status
of those who possess them.
As Thieme (2008: 4) notes the assets that people possess, the livelihoods they desire
and the strategies they adopt are all influenced by the social context in which they
live. According to her, this context has, broadly speaking, two spheres: the first sphere
is an overarching structural context, including organisations and institutions such as
rules, norms, policies and legislation shaping livelihoods. The second sphere of
people’s living context is their vulnerability. This means the insecurity of people’s well-
being in the face of a changing ecological, social, political or economic environment
(Rakodi 2002 cited in Thieme 2008). In a Ghanaian social context where migration is
highly regarded (Nieswand 2014) and its fruits, remittances, are highly appreciated
4 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
(Kabki, Mazzucato, and Appiah 2004), it becomes an important tool to alleviate
vulnerability.
Migration has become an important avenue for the acquisition of resources for liveli-
hood making. People mostly migrate with the hopes of improving lives for themselves
and fulfilling social obligations to their families (de Haas 2007; Eversole and Johnson
2014). Many migrants from ‘developing countries’ usually earn more income doing
menial jobs abroad than they do engaged in professional work in their origin country
(Piore 1979; Akyeampong 2000; Vasta and Kandilige 2010). Having earned some
income, migrants send portions of it to their relatives back home to contribute to the
household or family income pool. Transnational livelihood in this study therefore
refers to the strategies migrants and their relatives adopt to make a living as well as to
improve the quality of their lives that traverse national boundaries.
In-kind remittances form an important aspect of transnational livelihoods. The pres-
tige and status enhancement that come with having access to Western consumer goods
potentially contribute to livelihood making because they are perceived to be of ‘higher
standards’ and reflect the notion of ‘good living’. Such sentiments can be attributable
to the legacies of colonialism and imperialism where European consumer goods and pro-
ducts have been elevated as superior compared to locally produced ones (Chulu 2015).
In-kind remittances also instrumentally enhance societal inequalities because they
serve as markers of distinction. However, by sending these ‘high standard’ items and
goods (food, clothing, stationery, medicines, etc.) to their relatives back home, their rela-
tives do not have to dispense already meagre incomes to acquire these items anew. Rela-
tives can, therefore, focus on using their scarce resources for other pressing needs.
Transnational migrant entrepreneurs that facilitate the movement of in-kind remittances
to relatives frommigrants are notably providing crucial services that enable the fulfilment
of familial responsibilities and obligations.
Transnational migrant entrepreneurs operate between origin and destination
countries and crucially they tend to be recent arrivals to the destination country (Vershi-
nina et al. 2019, 239). The Ghanaian migrants in this study who set up these businesses
are part of the ‘New African Diaspora’ (Van Hear 1998; Koser 2003), with many of them
arriving in the 1990s and 2000s. These entrepreneurs differ from transnational diaspora
entrepreneurs, who, though engaging in similar activities, are second or third generation
migrants (Elo 2016 cited in Vershinina et al. 2019, 239). Transnational migrant entrepre-
neurs in this study are however different from those in Vershinina et al.’s (2019) study
because they are recent migrants who started their transnational businesses from
scratch in the destination country in part as a response to labour market constraints
in the destination country and also because they saw a profit-making niche while at
the same time helping their co-ethnics to fulfil their transnational livelihood responsibil-
ities. These businesses are not extensions of previous ones in origin countries. They are
also different from other migrant businesses in the destination country which only cater
to migrants in the destination country, for example various migrant-owned shops that
serve the needs of migrants in the community. As much as they stock items of symbolic
significance that align with or facilitate ‘practices of sociability, mutual help, and public
rituals rooted in the cultural understandings that pertain to the sense of belonging and
social obligations of immigrants’ (Itzigsohn and Saucedo 2002, 768), these businesses
are not typically transnational in their operations.
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 5
While the literature on transnational migrant entrepreneurship highlights the duality
of the everyday experiences of business people operating across transnational spaces
(Yamanaka 2005, Thai 2012, Brzozowski et al. 2017 cited in Vershinina et al. 2019), to
date very little is known about their role in fulfilling migrants’ and their relatives’ trans-
national livelihood obligations. As other aspects of this research show [not covered in this
paper] many of these businesses are not fixated on profit-making and in many cases, they
do not make profits. They are very altruistic in their outlook and orientation. They find
fulfilment in helping their co-ethnics and their families achieve their social obligations
and livelihood goals.
‘Door-to-door’ shipping businesses as transnational migrant
entrepreneurships
The ‘door-to-door’ shipping is a type of transnational migrant entrepreneuship business
that falls under the category of ‘circuit firms’ as conceptualised by Landolt, Autler, and
Baires (1999). This is because they are a combination of formal, semi-formal and infor-
mal courier services that facilitate the transfer of goods across national borders. In a study
of Latin American migrants in the US, Landolt, Autler, and Baires (1999) identified four
types of transnational enterprises: circuit firms which involved the transport of goods
across national boundaries through informal couriers; cultural enterprises which
involved the importation of local goods from the home country to the destination;
ethnic enterprises which are small retail businesses catering to the migrant community
dependent on a steady supply of imported goods, such as foodstuffs and clothing from
the home country; and lastly, return migrant microenterprises which are businesses
established by returnees who rely on their contacts in the destination country for their
merchandise (Landolt, Autler, and Baires 1999 cited in Portes, Guarnizo, and Haller
2002).
These transnational enterprises are usually established by the migrants as an alterna-
tive form of livelihood in order to integrate economically into the host community
(Landolt, Autler, and Baires 1999). Migrants have been noted to form part of the min-
ority population in their host nations; their minority statuses sometimes constrain
their access to socio-economic opportunities (Sniderman, Hagendoorn, and Prior
2004). According to Portes and Zhou (1999), migrants create their own economic oppor-
tunities by being self-employed; such migrant entrepreneurs have been said to be more
economically stable than their co-migrants who work for others. ‘Door-to-door’ shipping
operators are transnational migrant entrepreneurs and emerging literature on transna-
tional migrant entrepreneurs (Portes, Guarnizo, and Haller 2002; Zhou and Liu 2015)
has revealed the contributions of such transnational actors to their origin countries’
development prospects. This shipping model is a type of transnational enterprise
within the Ghana-UK migration corridor which allows Ghanaian migrants to contribute
to the livelihood improvement of their relatives back home. The activities of such enter-
prises support the construction of livelihoods especially at the household level across
transnational spaces.
There are ongoing debates about the impacts of transnational lifestyles on migrants’
integration in their host countries. Some scholars claim that living ‘here and there’
does not allow a migrant to fully integrate into their host nation. However, akin to the
6 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
views of Zhou and Liu (2015), this study corroborates the idea that transnationalism
allows migrants to integrate in their host communities without having to lose their iden-
tities. The ‘door-to-door’ shipping businesses help migrants to connect with their home
country. Owners of such transnational migrant enterprises use their self-employment to
be able to integrate economically in their host countries, while helping their co-migrants
to connect with their origin through the sending of in-kind remittances. Migrants are
able to use such transnational businesses to create some form of back up or insurance
in their home country. The ‘door-to-door’ shipping business allows many migrants to
engage in economic activities in the origin as a form of security and insurance either
in their home country or destination country. For example, this shipping model helps
Ghanaian migrants in the UK to send home building materials for their building projects
in Ghana or to send home goods for commercial purposes. These investments in Ghana
serve as a form of insurance should they have any economic challenges in the UK. This
supports reasons why migrants engage in transnational activities as espoused by scholars
such as Guarnizo (2003); Itzigsohn and Saucedo (2002); and Levitt and Jaworsky (2007).
This form of transnational lifestyle also supports migration theories such as the New
Economics of Labour Migration Theory (Lucas and Stark 1985; Stark and Bloom 1985;
Stark and Lucas 1988) which describe migration as a means of spreading risks, protecting
households from poverty and safeguarding against market failures and poor access to
credit.
This paper contributes theoretically to the transnational literature by demonstrating
how transnational migrant entrepreneurship that facilitates the transfer of in-kind remit-
tances enhances the fulfilment of transnational livelihood responsibilities and social obli-
gations. We also emphasise the need for a better appreciation of the role of these
businesses in the transnational space between the ‘Global South’ and ‘Global North’
through our focus on the under-studied role of these businesses in livelihood making
across transnational spaces.
Research methods
To answer the research question, we adopted a case study research methodology, which
consists of a detailed investigation, often with data collected over a period of time, of
phenomena, within their context (Hatley 2004). We ensured proper community entry
through key community gatekeepers (such as Heads of Hometown Associations and pro-
fessional groupings) as a means of establishing a good rapport between study commu-
nities and the research team.1 This reduced any suspicions community members
might have had about the study. We used different entry nodes to avoid sampling
from close-knit groups who might have similar perspectives on phenomena.
This study focused on ‘door-to-door’ operators in the UK using London as a case
study and their partners in Accra, Ghana. As the capital city of the UK and one that
hosts the majority of Ghanaian migrants as well as Ghanaian migrant businesses,
London was deemed critical as a study site. Accra, as Ghana’s capital city and final
national location for Ghanaian stepwise migration to the UK and the hub of many
businesses, including enterprises that partner UK-based ‘door-to-door’ operators, was
equally selected for the study. ‘Door-to-door’ migrant entrepreneurships that serve the
needs of Ghanaian migrant communities in the UK are usually situated as close to
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 7
their customers as possible in order to cut the transportation costs involved in collecting
items for shipment. As London has the highest concentration of Ghanaian migrants,
therefore, it serves as a good context for an in-depth analysis of the operations of
these businesses that facilitate transnational livelihood making.
Interviews were conducted with five (5) key informants in the UK who were purpo-
sively sampled owners and managing directors of ‘door-to-door’ businesses and eighteen
(18) migrants who use ‘door-to-door’ businesses on a large scale to facilitate their own
businesses in Ghana as well as those who use their services on a regular basis to transport
personal in-kind remittances to Ghana. We also engaged in non-participant obser-
vations, where feasible, in order to compare what we gathered through interviews with
what we observed. The motivation for this approach was its ability to allow for an analysis
of the disjuncture, contradictions and discrepancies between discourse and practice
(Herbert 2000; Eyles 1988).
In Ghana, in-depth interviews were conducted with five, purposively sampled, Port
Officials and officials of the Ghana Revenue Authority. Another five key-informant in-
depth interviews were conducted among local staff and business partners of ‘door-to-
door’ operators in Ghana. In addition, twenty (20) in-depth interviews were conducted
among recipients of in-kind remittances through ‘door-to-door’ operators in order to
gain a deeper understanding of bi-directional transnational livelihood making processes.
These interviewees were not necessarily matched with senders in the UK and their views
were not meant to directly validate submissions by UK-based migrants. In addition to the
in-depth interviews, one focus group discussion was held among recipients of goods in
Ghana and a phone-in radio programme at a Ghanaian-owned radio station in London.
The aim of the radio programme was to provide a platform for migrants to discuss
collectively how the ‘door-to-door’ phenomenon has impacted their transnational liveli-
hood strategies. The medium of broadcast radio is an innovative approach for sampling
the views of diverse participants in situations where there are challenges to assembling
people in one physical space. The potential limitation of having too many participants
was offset by a cap in the number callers within an hour-long slot. In the interest of main-
taining a balanced discussion, apart from the host of the radio programme and the
researchers, a representative of the five biggest ‘door-to-door’ companies was a panellist.
The focus group approach placed participants in a group context, where ‘conversations
can flourish in what can be considered more common place social situations’ (Bedford
and Burgess 2001, 123). Participants at the focus group discussion in Ghana were selected
from individual interviewees on the basis of divergence of views, depth of knowledge or
experience and gender. Data were analysed with the help of Nvivo Version 11. This
package was used to help explain the patterns generated by qualitative data. All efforts
were made to ensure that the identities of respondents were protected. Data were anon-
ymised and pseudonyms are used to prevent the tracing of specific information to any
individuals or groups.
Findings
Relying extensively on primary data collected through the key informant interviews, indi-
vidual in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and review of secondary data, this
section examines the contributions of the ‘door-to-door’ business model to the co-
8 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
creation and/or maintenance of transnational livelihoods simultaneously across transna-
tional social fields. The units of analyses are the recipients of in-kind remittances in
Ghana, senders of in-kind remittances from the UK and the broader Ghanaian economy.
Overcoming livelihood challenges: construction/maintenance of
individuals’ and families’ transnational livelihoods in Ghana
One of the ways in which transnational migrant entrepreneurships assist Ghanaian
migrants and their relatives to overcome livelihood making challenges is through the
accumulation of social assets, that is, enhancing social status in the community. The facil-
itating factors that characterise globalisation such as the Internet, mobile phone technol-
ogy, advanced transportation networks, social media and online market platforms enable
the growing middle class in Ghana as well as return migrants from the ‘Global North’ to
participate in buying consumer goods that are either believed to be of superior quality or
that are perceived as a status symbol. Additionally, family members of migrants benefit
from non-cash remittances that help enhance their social status within their immediate
community. There is a societal expectation in Ghana (similar to other ‘developing
countries’) of a higher standard of living among households that have relatives living
abroad (Nieswand 2014). These are actualised through overt markers of affluence
among migrant households in terms of what they eat, how they dress and what they
use. These markers actively reinforce the perceived expectations and obligations on
migrants. Sometimes, in order to satisfy these community-imposed standards, Ghanaian
migrants ship European foods, soaps, perfumes, clothes, shoes, electronics, equipment
and other items (from clearly visible European brands) to their households or family
members. Such in-kind remittances further shape societal expectations on migrant
households and impose significant pressures on them to fulfil the obligations. While
financial remittances could potentially buy similar prestigious goods in Ghana, the
fear of inadvertently purchasing imitated Chinese products dissuades stay-behind
families from relying on cash to attain enhanced social statuses. Receipt of authentic
British prestigious goods tends to consolidate certain practices of socio-economic dis-
tinction and differentiation between migrant and non-migrant households in Ghana.
As one family member (recipient, Ghana) notes, the ‘door-to-door’ business model
has facilitated the receipt and use of foreign items:
… in the first place, families are directly benefitting from family members who are
outside the country and then also, people now have an opportunity to use items which pre-
viously they couldn’t have gotten on the Ghanaian market. (Osafo, Recipient, Ghana)
The transnational nature of the ‘door-to-door’ business model allows Ghanaian con-
sumers to access goods from countries that are outside their usual social and economic
realm. These trans-border exchanges enable the circulation of non-financial and social
assets across disparate economic geographies (De Haan 2012; Francis 2019). The funda-
mental design of the ‘door-to-door’ business model hinges on its ability to guarantee the
collection and transportation of items from a given address in the destination country,
and then shipping, clearing and the delivery to a specific address in the origin
country. This is convenient for recipients in Ghana because, it eliminates the need for
recipients to hire the services of clearing agents and also arranging for private transpor-
tation of goods from the habour to their homes.
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 9
Our study also found that transnational migrant entrepreneurships also allow
migrants and their relatives to overcome bureaucratic hurdles that characterise liveli-
hood-making in many parts of Ghana. Bureaucratic hurdles and pervasive incidents of
bribery and corruption tend to increase the costs incurred by recipients who do not
receive their goods through the all-inclusive ‘door-to-door’ business option. These senti-
ments are shared by receivers in Ghana:
They [door-to-door] are convenient; I don’t need to hire a clearing agent to clear my
goods. They contribute a lot, prior to this we had no convenient and cheap means of receiv-
ing our goods from our people abroad but now they even have very small boxes that cost
about £30 so you don’t have to save so much to be able to send something home. (Kofi,
Recipient, Ghana).
I can say that its operation [door-to-door] is fast and stress-free because one needs not to
go to the harbour to go through stress in clearing the goods. That is, once the door-to-door
company gets our residence address and telephone number, they’ll deliver the goods to our
home. So, there is no excuse for them [migrants] not to send us things’ (Odame, Recipient,
Ghana).
These accounts of convenience notwithstanding, challenges persist in relation to
delays, non-delivery of goods and damaged packages. Some of these frustrations are
demonstrated by what some recipients said:
Yes, the last time, they took my goods to another person, I also do some catering as a side
business and they delayed with the delivery of my cake tins, I ended up losing my client
because she wanted that particular type of cake for her wedding. Concerning the delivery
of wrong goods, they later brought my things when I called to complain. But the delay of
goods is a constant thing and they never compensate (Amankwa, Recipient, Accra).
Yes, the last time we bought a baby walker and there was a stick that was supposed to
come with it but it wasn’t in the box. We called them several times but we have not had any
response, so it’s just lying around and cannot be used now (Daniel, Recipient, Accra).
These transnational migrant entrepreneurships also assist with transnational care
delivery to ensure that migrants fulfil their livelihood responsibilities to their stay-
behind relatives. Family separation that ensues from the physical absence of migrant
parents is sometimes bridged by the transfer of both financial and in-kind remittances,
in order to cater for the needs of stay-behind children and family members. Extant lit-
erature examines aspects of the role of parents, grandparents and other caregivers in
the absence of migrant parents (Mazzucato 2011; Mazzucato and Schans 2011). ‘Door-
to-door’ businesses are found to be a critical component in facilitating transnational
care delivery and also the amelioration of the emotional and psychological stress that
is associated with long-distance familial relations. Such in-kind remittances could be
scripted as help, obligation and entitlement (Carling 2014) in the sense that they are
meant to support the recipient while also being perceived as an obligation on the part
of the giver and a sense of entitlement from the recipient’s perspective.
… their [door-to-door] existence has helped to bridge the distance between me and my
parents in some way. In order not to lack, they send me lots of stuff, which I wouldn’t have
been able to receive before. I managed to even do business at some point for extra money so
it’s good… (Janet, Recipient, Ghana).
Ultimately, recipients of goods through ‘door-to-door’ shipping operators are motiv-
ated to do so because they find it convenient and relatively cheap. Recipients actively
10 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
encourage their migrant relatives abroad to patronise the services of ‘door-to-door’ oper-
ators because goods are delivered to their preferred address and at no direct cost to the
recipient since the sender, who is based abroad, prior to the shipment, mostly covers the
fees. A cross section of recipients interviewed, all points to these two factors (convenience
and cost) as their main motivation for their positive reviews of the role of ‘door-to-door’
operators. These views are equally echoed by senders of items from the UK:
It is more convenient… so I’m home and then I get a call from the agency, I direct them
to my location and then they just drive to my gate and then hand over the stuff to me and I
sign… (Stephen, Recipient in Ghana)
From my personal observation, what I would say is that it’s a sigh of relief. Like I stated
earlier on, the hustle of shipping this thing, going to the port, clearing it personally is gone.
You know what happens at the port, this thing is supposed to cost you GHc10, by the time
you realise you’ve paid about GHc50 for it. All because you have to go to so many people or
offices… so many chains before you can clear something. So, I think they [door-to-door]
have reduced a lot of unwarranted time wasting for some of us, somebody like me.
(Dominic, Sender, UK).
The above narratives demonstrate how transnational livelihoods are constructed and
maintained through a shipping business model that consolidates the previously fragmen-
ted stages in cross-border transportation of goods into a seamless and coherent oper-
ation. Given the high expectations on migrants and their families in the origin to
exhibit higher standards of living, the ability of transnational migrant entrepreneurship
to help secure, maintain and potentially durably improve migrant households’ living
standards is complementary. The ease and convenience of sending in-kind remittances
to Ghana, offered by these transnational migrant entrepreneurships mean that migrants
and their relatives are able to maintain the high standards that are expected of them.
Facilitation of transnational livelihoods among Ghanaian migrants in the
UK
‘Door-to-door’ operations support the facilitation of transnational livelihoods by Gha-
naian migrants in the UK. The transnational turn in migration literature points to the
ability of migrants to have a virtual presence in multiple social fields, including their
country of origin, while being physically based at a remote destination country (Vertovec
1999). This is manifested in the form of economic, socio-cultural and political intercon-
nections among diverse geographical locations (including origin and destination) where
migrants use modern technology and communications systems to foster and maintain
multi-stranded relations with their social networks based in diverse locations, including
in origin countries (Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton 1992; Basch, Schiller, and
Szanton-Blanc 1994).
Research participants in the UK reported using the services of ‘door-to-door’ oper-
ators, for instance, to facilitate their participation in economic transnationalism
through the setting up and running of business enterprises in Ghana. Convenience,
cost-effectiveness and reliability of the ‘door-to-door’ model (hassle-free shipping)
allows for the establishment of profitable businesses in Ghana by migrants employing
the services of local employees to manage the day-to-day operations while they
monitor profitability remotely. Though there are instances of some failed transnational
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 11
business ventures whereby invested capital is squandered by trusted familial relations,
there are equally examples of successful ones. Some of the successful transnational
business enterprises are sometimes managed by non-familial social networks (Smith
and Mazzucato 2009). The virtual immersion of Ghanaians abroad in the economy of
their country of origin extends beyond their purchase of financial packages or portfolios
such as ‘diaspora bonds’ to include the shipping, for sale, of either used equipment/items
and clothing or brand-new items that are bought at discounted prices during seasonal
sales abroad.
Again, relatively lower costs that characterise the ‘door-to-door’ shipping option com-
pared with the air freight option serve as the main strength in migrants relying on it to
consolidate their transnational existence. Such economic activities do not necessarily pre-
clude migrants from actively participating in the economy of their destination country
but rather speak to the validity of the concepts of simultaneity and duality that are
embedded in the theory of transnationalism. These key concepts highlight the contem-
porary reality of migrants’ lives whereby loyalty to and participation in more than one
social field are not mutually exclusive. The economic case for migrants’ patronage of
‘door-to-door’ shipping is demonstrated in the following quotes by Augustine and Stella:
A box of about 50kg to 80kg will cost about £50 and the same weight on the airlines will
cost me in a region of about £500 plus. So, cost-wise, it’s very, very price-effective: (Augus-
tine, Sender, UK).
People are able to do businesses and it creates jobs as well in Ghana. I know, because
people buy stuff here and take it to Ghana for relatives to sell (Stella, Sender, UK).
Another layer of long distance belonginess by migrants in countries of origin is the
ownership of physical assets (especially houses) in their countries of origin. The building
of houses in Ghana by migrants is perceived to be critical to the projection of success and
attainment of upward social mobility (Kandilige 2017; Mohan 2006; Van der Geest 1998).
In actualising such constructions, migrants draw on either familial or distant social net-
works. As Smith and Mazzucato (2009) note, migrants sometimes prefer working with
non-family members as such relations are freer from social obligations than those
with family relations. Examples of exploitation of migrants by their own social networks
exists. A classic example involves misappropriation of funds sent towards house building
projects:
That has been a problem honestly… it started off with my sister-in-law, she actually
bought the land and you knowGhana the way they are, when I eventually got home I realised
that they inflated the price of the land like five times (sic). Then she told me the boyfriend was
a contractor. When I was sending the money, they were not even using the money to do the
project she was now using it for her own thing. So, I had to get rid of that contractor get
another person to do it, so the initial money I spent was just wasted (Charles, Sender, UK).
Nonetheless our study confirmed the shipment of building materials and furniture
from the UK to Ghana through ‘door-to-door’ operators mainly because it is a
cheaper option than through air freight. Beyond the cost calculus, these actions help
cement migrants’ social status within their origin communities. The prevailing acknowl-
edgement that goods made in or bought from the UK are of a higher quality suggests that
migrant households are presumed to enjoy a higher standard of living compared with
their non-migrant household contemporaries. Paradoxically, as Kandilige (2017) notes,
migrant-owned mansions are sometimes constructed without the knowledge of family
12 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
members and left vacant for most times of the year – only occupied by waged caretakers.
These scenarios arise when such migrants are either fearful of envious extended family
members harming them through juju (i.e. voodoo) on account of their wealth or when
they want to avoid heavy demands on their resources by relatives who see house building
by migrants as an outward sign of affluence. Moreover, house building by migrants has
broader direct economic benefits to Ghana by relieving the pressure on demand for
housing (by increasing the housing stock), providing rental accommodation and creating
construction-related employment opportunities.
A lot of people living abroad have houses but they’re not living in them, it’s their relatives
rather who are living in them, which is reducing the pressure on the government of Ghana
to build houses for the Ghanaians. So, the door-to-door business is very, very important
especially to the people in Ghana’. (Kojo, Operator, UK)
The role of ‘door-to-door’ operators also brings intangible benefits to Ghanaian trans-
national migrants in the UK. This includes migrants gaining respect among their stay-
behind household members, helping establish and maintain emotional connections
between families and relations based in different geographical locations and enhancing
the wellbeing of migrants through the peace of mind that is associated with feeling
fulfilled and valued by recipients of remitted goods. These mechanisms help bridge the
physical distance between migrants and their families in Ghana and foster transnational
livelihoods. As one sender of goods through ‘door-to-door’ operators notes, ‘It helps to
bridge the distance between me and my parents in some way’ (Eugena, Sender, UK).
Other accounts of transnational transfers of in-kind remittances equally demonstrate
the depth of bonding ensuing from seemingly benign gifts from a destination country:
The past years that I’ve sent clothes to them [family members in Ghana], they called me
to say, look it’s been of immense help to us. And hearing that alone, I felt very fulfilled that
at least these things I was going to give away anyway are being valued so much at home.
Hearing that response from them really made me feel that little things are also valued. At
the end of the day, I was going to throw these things away in the UK but they are helping
somebody somewhere (Aduah, Sender, UK).
For instance, someone called me that their microwave was broken and so they needed a
microwave. If you send them cash, they will probably buy an inferior microwave that will
get spoilt within a short time. But if you buy one and send to them, then you know you’ve
given them what they want and you know you’ve given something of a better value. (Fati-
matu, Sender, UK)
… sending things back home, it is making life easy and people back home are able to get
most of the stuff we eat here. They also get the opportunity to eat, because I’ve got a cousin
who likes rice pudding so much. So, when she sees the rice pudding she is so excited, because
the way they do it in Ghana is not the way they make rice pudding here [UK]. So, they get
the opportunity to eat some of the stuff we eat here. (Samata, Sender, UK)
As Nieswand (2014, 11) notes, for instance, of one Ghanaian returned migrant from
Germany, ‘not being able to give material evidence of having been to Europe is proble-
matic because it would disappoint one’s significant others’ expectations and could even
lead them to question his moral integrity’. When such expectations are met, migrants are
able to live transnationally and draw moral credit from household and community
members at the origin. Transnational migrants sometimes inhabit the lower sectors of
the destination societies’ economies, especially the informal economies, due to lack of
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 13
appropriate immigration documentation, work permits or as a result of discrimination
and racism against them. As a result, these situations compromise migrants’ ability to
negotiate commensurate wages with their employers. However, as target earners
(Piore 1979; Vasta and Kandilige 2010) migrants accept these jobs as those low wages
still translate to substantial amounts when converted to their home country’s currency
or compared with the likely unemployment they would have faced by not migrating.
When in-kind remittances are transferred by transnational migrants with the help of
transnational migrant entrepreneurship to their relations in Ghana, there are what Nies-
wand (2014, 13) calls ‘collaborative silences’ whereby transnational migrants ‘do not
address how they acquired their resources but also their significant others, who take
pre-emptive measures not to ask’. The facilitating role of this transnational migrant
entrepreneurship thus simultaneously bolster migrants’ and migrant households’
ability to strategically or deliberately use migration, in combination with other strategies,
to secure, maintain and improve their livelihoods both at the destination and origin.
Co-creation of transnational livelihoods: benefits to the Ghanaian
economy
The economy of Ghana is predominantly supported by the export of primary products
such as cocoa and gold which are affected by unstable world prices for these commod-
ities. As the economy of Ghana continues to be diversified, ‘door-to-door’ shipping
businesses have the potential to be a significant source of revenue to the country. The
research clearly indicates a significant emerging contribution to revenue (taxes and
levies) from this business model. Interviews with officials at the Ghana Ports and
Habours Authority and ‘door-to-door’ operators in the UK suggest that on a daily
basis, on average, one hundred and sixty 40-footer containers are cleared from the
Jubilee Terminal at Tema (Ghana) alone. Duties and taxes on each 40-footer container
are about ¢35,000. As a result, 160 containers cleared at the unit price generates ¢
5,600,000 per day. Consequently, an annual estimated income of ¢2,044,000,000 is gen-
erated from shipping businesses in taxes and duties. In addition, the Postal and Courier
Services Regulatory Commission of Ghana charges about GH¢3,500 per annum for the
renewal of registration documentation of shipping companies. This also generates some
needed income for the Ghanaian economy. As a key component of the shipping sector in
Ghana, the ‘door-to-door’ business model enables Ghanaians abroad to co-create wealth
for their country of origin through their transnational activities.
Additionally, it is estimated that the shipping industry directly supports over 5000 jobs
in Ghana and these workers pay taxes which contribute revenue to the economy (Ghana
Ports and Harbors Authority 2015). Employment opportunities also exist indirectly for
allied businesses that facilitate the operations of shipping companies. Between 2006
and 2015 another major port, the Tarkoradi Port, in Ghana received 256,094 metric
tonnes of cargo and contributed substantial tax revenue to the government of Ghana
(Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority 2015). Job creation in a lower middle-income
country such as Ghana is critical to national development. Multiplier effects of the
receipt of wages and salaries from shipping-related employment go beyond the immedi-
ate beneficiaries to positively support the local economies at the community level.
Demand for goods and services is enhanced and the ability to enrol children into
14 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
educational institutions rises. In addition, access to better healthcare is improved by the
receipt of wages in the shipping sector. Direct employment opportunities are available to
clearing agents, warehouse operators, drivers, manual labourers who load and offload
goods, salespersons at fuel stations and Ports and Habours Authority officials among
others. As one UK-based ‘door-to-door’ operator notes, for example, ‘In Ghana, we
have around 40 employees in Accra and 15 in Kumasi’ (Operator, UK). While the
numbers (per business) do not seem to be large, cumulatively they amount to a signifi-
cant contribution towards minimising the unemployment challenge in the country. The
above economic activities speak to the disparate perspectives on the concept of develop-
ment both as ‘human development’ (Sen 1999) and ‘economic growth’ (Rostow 1960).
These socio-economic outcomes support Sen’s (1999) conceptualisation of development
as ‘expanding the substantive freedoms that people enjoy’ and the concept of human
capability which refers to the ability of human beings to lead lives they have reason to
value and to improve the substantive choices they have. In addition, tax revenues contrib-
ute to ‘economic growth’ as analysed by the Bretton Woods institutions, in the form of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indices.
The nexus between receipt of remittances (cash or in-kind) and development is,
however, contested and context specific (UNDP 2009). The ‘dumping’ of foreign manu-
factures into a ‘developing economy’ potentially has detrimental implications for the via-
bility of local companies and industries. Additionally, consumption habits of Ghanaians
have transformed, over time, thus diminishing confidence in local products. Moreover,
the injection of remittance capital into communities that already have disparate levels
of development could further widen the income and welfare inequality gap between
migrant and non-migrant households.
This notwithstanding, as stated earlier, the establishment of businesses by transna-
tional migrants and the building of both commercial and private housing contribute
to national development. Direct as well as allied employment associated with migrant-
owned businesses help reduce the unemployment rates in Ghana. Construction-related
jobs that ensue from migrant-funded projects also support the construction sector and
provide revenue to retailers of cement products and other hardware businesses. As
such, access to human, financial, social and physical assets (Carney 1998; Yendaw,
Tanle, and Kumi-Kyereme 2019) is enhanced at the national spatial level through the
activities of ‘door-to-door’ businesses as transnational migrant entrepreneurships.
Even so, there were instances of senders attempting to use the channel of ‘door-to-
door’ to launder cash illegally into Ghana.2 Potential acts of criminality therefore
expose a vulnerability that needs to be plugged if this means of transnational in-kind
transfers is to be adopted on a larger scale.
Conclusion
This research has put in-kind remittance, which have been mostly relegated to the back-
ground in migration and remittance studies, front and centre of its analysis. We dis-
cussed that these transfers are crucial to the transnational livelihood making strategies
of migrants and their relatives. ‘Door-to-door’ business operations set up by relatively
recent arrived African migrants in the UK are part of an important linkage that migrants
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 15
maintain with their relatives back home which makes it possible for migrants to fulfil
their transnational livelihood obligations and high expectations placed on them.
Theoretically, we argue that this research offers a different perspective of in-kind
remittances which are usually subsumed under cash remittances and transnational
migrant entrepreneurship by accounting for their role in helping migrants and
their families to gain direct access to various resources including social and physical
assets that ordinarily are outside their economic and social realm. By critically ana-
lysing the role of these transnational actors we highlight the need to broaden the
transnational migration debates and include other non-traditional actors to assess
their role in simultaneously co-creating migrants’ and their relatives’ livelihoods.
Two crucial interrelating factors emerge as shaping the use of these transnational
migrant entrepreneurships: convenience and cheaper transfer costs. As such, these
services go a long way to alleviate migrants’ and their families’ livelihood challenges
and should therefore be firmly incorporated into wider transnational migration
discourses.
Additionally, we provide innovative insights by focusing on African migrant
businesses that operate across transnational spaces. Indeed, by focusing on these
businesses we were able to understand the value placed on in-kind remittances and
how African migrants and their relatives co-create, maintain and potentially durably
improve their livelihoods in a context where formal social protection schemes are
limited. A focus on these migrant entrepreneurships has enabled us uncover the pre-
emptive ways migrants and their relatives ensure that ‘collaborative silences’ Nieswand
(2014, 13) are maintained within an otherwise intrusively judgemental migrant commu-
nity. Transnational migrant entrepreneurship thus concurrently intensifies migrants’ and
their families’ ability to strategically use migration, in combination with other strategies,
to secure and improve their own livelihoods while satisfying the social image that is
expected of them by their immediate societies.
Finally, in terms of national development discourse, we have argued that the ‘door-to-
door’ business model enables Ghanaians abroad to co-create wealth at the macro
(national) level for their origin country through their transnational activities. The poten-
tial developmental effects accrue from the payment of taxes, duties and other levies by
‘door-to-door’ entrepreneurships and their allied businesses. These transnational
migrant entrepreneurships also create jobs that reduce unemployment in a country
where there are many economically active young people but inadequate job opportu-
nities. However, the consumption of foreign consumer goods in a developing
economy potentially has pernicious implications for the sustainability of local companies
and industries. Though the operations of these niche businesses are on a relatively small
scale, this research has exposed their potential contribution to national income gener-
ation and national development.
Notes
1. The research team consisted of the authors, research colleagues and research assistants from
the Centre for Migration Studies, University of Ghana.
2. A classic example unearthed by our research is the case of the UK police (upon a tip off)
invading the offices of a ‘door-to-door’ company to investigate the shipment of so-called
16 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
baby foods to Ghana. Upon inspection, it was discovered that each tin container was filled to
the brim with Fifty Pound Sterling bank notes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Office of Research Innovation and Development, University of Ghana
[grant number URF/9/ILG-074/2015-2016].
References
Ajilore, T., and S. Ikihide. 2012. “A Bounds Testing Analysis of Migrants Remittances and
Financial Development in Selected Sub-Sahara African Countries.” The Review of Finance
and Banking 4 (2): 79–96.
Akyeampong, E. 2000. “Africans in the Diaspora: The Diaspora and Africa.” African Affairs 99
(395): 183–215.
Basch, L., G. N. Schiller, and C. Szanton-Blanc. 1994. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects,
Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation- States. Langhorne, PA: Gordon &
Breach.
Bedford, T., and J. Burgess. 2001. “The Focus Group Experience.” In Qualitative Methodologies for
Geographers: Issues and Debates, edited byM. Limb, and C. Dwyer, 121–135. New York: Arnold.
Bladé, Y. 2011. “The Impact of Remittances and Foreign Aid on Savings/Investment in Sub-
Saharan Africa.” African Development Review 23 (2): 247–262.
Carling, J. 2014. “Scripting Remittances: Making Sense of Money Transfers in Transnational
Relationships.” International Migration Review 48 (1): 218–262.
Carney, D., ed. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can we Make? London:
Department for International Development.
Chambers, R., and G. Conway. 1991. “Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the
21st Century.” Accessed February 10, 2021. http://www.smallstock.info/reference/IDS/dp296.
pdf.
Chulu, J. 2015. “Africa is Largely Influenced by Foreign Culture Especially Western Culture. Has
Africa now Sacrificed Her Own Culture on the Altar of Expediency?” Accessed December 31,
2020. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2671784 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2671784.
Cohen, J. H. 2011. “Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies.” Annual Review of
Anthropology 40 (1): 103–114.
De Bryun, T. 2006. Dynamics of remittance utilization in Bangladesh. BUSAG 2006. Forum on
remittances and expatriates: Developments in Bangladesh. Organised by the Bangladesh
Support Group. Accessed June 7, 2019. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.659.3098&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
De Haan, L. J. 2012. “The Livelihood Approach: A Critical Exploration.” Erdkunde 66 (4): 345–
357.
de Haas, H. 2007. Remittances, Migration and Social Development. A Conceptual Review of the
Literature. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Deshingkar, P., and D. Start. 2003. Seasonal migration for livelihoods in India: Coping, accumu-
lation and exclusion. Working Paper 220, London: Overseas Development Institute.
Eversole, R., and M. Johnson. 2014. “Migrant Remittances and Household Development: An
Anthropological Analysis.” Development Studies Research 1 (1): 1–15.
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 17
Eyles, J. 1988. “Interpreting the Geographical World: Qualitative Approaches in Geographical
Research.” In Qualitative Methods in Human Geography, edited by J. Eyles, and D. Smith, 1–
16. Totawa, NJ: Barnes & Noble.
Francis, E. 2019.Making a Living: Changing Livelihoods in Rural Africa. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority. 2015. Maritime Annual Report. Accessed June 7, 2020.
http://www.ghanaports.gov.gh/publications.
Guarnizo, L. E. 2003. “The Economics of Transnational Living.” International Migration Review 37
(3): 666–699.
Gueta, I., and D. Sridi. 2014. Institutional Quality Effect on Remittances in the MENA Region. The
Economic Research Forum Working Paper No. 864.
Hatley, J. 2004. “Case Study Research.” In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organisational
Research, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 323–333. London: Sage.
Herbert, S. 2000. “For Ethnography.” Progress in Human Geography 24 (4): 550–568.
Itzigsohn, J., and S. G. Saucedo. 2002. “Immigrant Incorporation and Sociocultural
Transnationalism.” International Migration Review 36 (3): 766–798.
Kabki, M., V. Mazzucato, and E. Appiah. 2004. “Wo Benane a Eye Bebree: The Economic Impact
of Remittances of Netherlands-Based Ghanaian Migrants on Rural Ashanti.” Population, Space
and Place 10 (2): 85–97.
Kandilige, L. 2017. “The Role of Trust in Diaspora-Homeland Development Relations.” African
Human Mobility Review 3 (1): 671–701.
Koser, K. 2003. New African Diasporas: Global Diasporas. New York: Routledge.
Landolt, P., L. Autler, and S. Baires. 1999. “From Hermano Lejano to Hermano Mayor: The
Dialetics of Salvadoran Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (2): 290–315.
Levitt, P., and B. Jaworsky. 2007. “Transnational Migration Studies: Past Development and Future
Trends.” Unpublished thesis /dissertation, Department of Sociology, Yale University.
Lucas, R. E., and O. Stark. 1985. “Motivations to Remit: Evidence from Botswana.” Journal of
Political Economy 93 (5): 901–918.
Maphosa, F. 2007. “Remittances and Development: The Impact of Migration to South Africa on
Rural Livelihoods in Southern Zimbabwe.” Development Southern Africa 24 (1): 123–136.
Mazzucato, V. 2011. “Reverse Remittances in the Migration–Development Nexus: Two-Way
Flows Between Ghana and the Netherlands.” Population, Space and Place 17 (5): 454–468.
Mazzucato, V., and D. Schans. 2011. “Transnational Families and the Well-Being of Children:
Conceptual and Methodological Challenges.” Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (4): 704–712.
McDowell, C., and A. De Haan. 1997. “Migration and Sustainable Livelihoods: A Critical Review
of the Literature.” IDS Working Paper 65. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex.
Mohan, G. 2006. “Embedded Cosmopolitanism and the Politics of Obligation: The Ghanaian
Diaspora and Development.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 38: 867–883.
Nieswand, B. 2014. “The Burgers’ Paradox: Migration and the Transnationalization of Social
Inequality in Southern Ghana.” Ethnography 15 (4): 403–425.
Pholphirul, P. 2012. “Labour Migration and the Economic Sustainability in Thailand.” Journal of
Current Southeast Asian Affairs 31 (3): 59–83.
Piore, M. J. 1979. Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Portes, A., L. E. Guarnizo, and W. J. Haller. 2002. “Transnational Entrepreneurs: An Alternative
Form of Immigrant Economic Adaptation.” American Sociological Review 67 (2): 278–298.
Portes, A., and M. Zhou. 1999. “Entrepreneurship and Economic Progress in the 1990s: A
Comparative Analysis of Immigrants and African Americans.” In Immigration and
Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States, edited by F. D. Bean, and
S. Bell-Rose, 143–171. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Quartey, P. 2006. “The Impact of Migrant Remittances on Household Welfare in Ghana.” AERC
Research Papeŗ No. 158, African Economic Research Consortium.
Rostow, W. W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
18 G. A. ADIKU AND L. KANDILIGE
Sana, M. 2005. “Buying Membership in the Transnational Community: Migrant Remittances,
Social Status, and Assimilation.” Population Research and Policy Review 24 (1): 231–261.
Schiller, N. G., L. Basch, and C. Blanc-Szanton. 1992. Towards a Transnational Perspective on
Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences.
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
Smith, L., and V. Mazzucato. 2009. “Constructing Homes, Building Relationships: Migrant
Investments in Houses.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geographie 100 (5): 662–673.
Sniderman, P. M., L. Hagendoorn, and M. Prior. 2004. “Predisposing Factors and Situational
Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities.” The American Political Science
Review 98 (1): 35–49.
Stark, O., and D. Bloom. 1985. “The New Economics of Labor Migration.” American Economic
Review 75 (2): 173–178.
Stark, O., and R. E. Lucas. 1988. “Migration, Remittances, and the Family.” Economic Development
and Cultural Change 36 (3): 465–481.
Thieme, S. 2008. “Sustaining Livelihoods in Multi-Local Settings: Possible Theoretical Linkages
Between Transnational Migration and Livelihood Studies.” Mobilities 3 (1): 51–71.
UNDP. 2009. Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and
Development. New York: UNDP.
Van der Geest, S. 1998. “‘Yebisa Wo Fie’: Growing old and Building Houses in the Akan Culture of
Ghana.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 13 (4): 333–359.
Van Hear, N. 1998. New Diasporas: The Mass Exodus, Dispersal and Regrouping of Migrant
Communities. London: UCL Press.
Vasta, E., and L. Kandilige. 2010. “‘London the Leveller’: Ghanaian Work Strategies and
Community Solidarity.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36 (4): 581–598.
Vershinina, N., P. Rodgers, M. McAdam, and E. Clinton. 2019. “Transnational Migrant
Entrepreneurship, Gender and Family Business.” Global Networks 19 (2): 238–260.
Vertovec, S. 1999. “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22
(2): 447–462.
Yendaw, E., A. Tanle, and A. Kumi-Kyereme. 2019. “Analysis of Livelihood Activity Amongst
Itinerant West African Migrant Traders in the Accra Metropolitan Area.” Journal of Global
Entrepreneurship Research 9 (11): 1–21.
Zhou, M., and H. Liu. 2015. Transnational Entrepreneurship and Immigrant Integration: New
Chinese Immigrants in Singapore and the United States. Immigration and Work (Research in
the Sociology of Work, Volume 27, pp. 169–201). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.