EFFECTS OF MIGRATION ON THE LIVELIHOOD OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN THE KPANDO DISTRICT OF THE VOLTA REGION BY GUSTAV KUDJOE KESSIE (10358690) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF M.PHIL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION DEGREE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION COLLEGE OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF GHANA JULY, 2015 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh i DECLARATION I, Gustav Kudjoe Kessie do hereby declare that except for the references cited, which have been duly acknowledged, this thesis titled “EFFECTS OF MIGRATION ON THE LIVELIHOOD OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN THE KPANDO DISTRICT OF THE VOLTA REGION” is the product of my own research work in the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Ghana. This thesis has never been published or submitted either in part or whole for another degree in this institution or elsewhere. …………….………………….. ………………............. GUSTAV KUDJOE KESSIE DATE (STUDENT) ………………………..…......... ....…… ………............ DR. PASCHAL ATENGDEM DATE (SUPERVISOR) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my mother Amelia Tendeh. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am very thankful to my supervisor Dr. P.B. Atengdem for the immense painstaking role played in supervising this work. I sincerely thank Dr. J. Anaglo, Dr. S. Boateng, Dr. C. Freeman and Ms. Jemima Yakah all of the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Ghana for the support and advice given me towards this work. I am indeed grateful to Mr. Ekuban Kpando District MoFA. I thank my friends: Ivy Ankah, Patience Zogli, Peter Awuvey, Matilda Odonkor, Frank Tamekloe, Eric Amenyaglo, Kenneth Agbemehia, Bernard Agyemang; my sister Cynthia Mawuse Kessie and all who have supported me both in academia and in any other way. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv ABSTRACT The main objective of this study is to assess the causes of labour migration, low food crop production and remittance linkages on the livelihood of rural households in the Kpando District. The researcher used survey design to elicit information from 202 heads of non-migrants’ households within the study area. The households used for the study were selected by cluster sampling and information was elicited from them through personal interview and a structured questionnaire. Data for this study were edited, coded and analyzed using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) and inferential statistics. The New Economics of Labour Migration, the “Push- Pull” Model and Todaro Model of Migration were used. The sustainable livelihood framework was used to analyse the effects. The results revealed that, majority of rural households in Kpando district were involved in migration, and migration is an important part of their income. Findings showed that people may decide to migrate when their rural economy is disrupted. Such decisions could be as a result of natural catastrophe such as: flood, drought, insects and pests’ infestation, disease problems, infertile soil, lack of arable land for cultivation, communal clashes, family dispute and other adversities. The study found out that migration and remittance showed statistical significant difference compared to agricultural income, hence the decision to migrate. The results obtained from the study on the impact of migration on food crop production, come to validate all three theories. Findings revealed that farmers do not have access to financial support, the few farmers who had financial support from various sources had said it was inadequate for optimum production. The migration of people from food crop production areas affects food crop production negatively - high cost of human labour, increasing the cost of food production in the study area. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENT PAGE DECLARATION ............................................................................................................... i DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. .ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENT…………...…..…………………………………….….…...….. v LIST OF TABLES……….……………….……………………………………....….…..x LIST OF FIGURES…………..………………………………………………...……….xi LIST OF ABBRAVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS……..……………………………. xii LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………………..………. xiii CHAPTER ONE………………………………………………………………………….1 BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………1 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background to the Study .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research Problem......................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Research Question……………………………………………………………………8 1.4 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 9 1.6 Organization of the Study .......................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................. 11 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................. 11 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... .11 2.1 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 11 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi 2.1.1 “Push-Pull” Model of Migration ................................................................. 11 2.1.2 Todaro Model of Migration ........................................................................ 12 2.1.3 New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM).......................................... 13 2.2 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 13 2.3 Current Trends of Migration ...................................................................................... 15 2.4 Macro-economic Situation in Ghana…………………………………….………… 16 2.5 Labour Market Situation in Ghana……………………………………………….....17 2.6 Meeting the Millennium Development Goals ............................................................ 19 2.7 Farm Households and Poverty ................................................................................... 20 2.8 Migration and Household Welfare ............................................................................. 20 2.9 The Changing Causes and Drivers of Migration ....................................................... 21 2.10 Internal Migration in Ghana……………………………………………………….24 2.11 Migration as a Coping Strategy……………...………………………………….... 25 2.12 Migration in Ghana…………………………………………………………….......26 2.13 Agriculture for Food Security……………..………………………...…………… 27 2.14 Summary .................................................................................................................. 28 CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................... 29 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 29 3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 29 3.1 Research Design ......................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Survey Procedures ..................................................................................................... 30 3.3 Study Area ..……………………………………………………………………….. 30 3.4 Types of Individuals in Study Area …………………………………….....………. 33 3.5 Major Forms of Informal Sector Activities in Ghana……..…...…...………………33 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii 3.5.1 Forms of Informal Economic Activities in Ghana .................................... 33 3.5.2 The Rural Informal Labour ....................................................................... 34 3.5.3 Types of Labour in Rural Informal Economy............................................ 35 3.5.4. Urban Informal Workers .......................................................................... 37 3.5.5. Characteristics of Urban Informal Economy in Ghana ............................ 39 3.5.6 Employment Characteristics of the People Engaged in the Informal Sector …………………………………………………………………………………..40 3.5.7 The Enterprise Characteristics of the Activities in the Informal Sector .... 41 3.6 Study Population ........................................................................................................ 43 3.7 Sampling Technique and Sample Size ....................................................................... 43 3.8 Type and Sources of Data ......................................................................................... 44 3.9 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................... 44 3.10 Summary ……..………………………………………………………………..…. 45 CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................... 46 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 46 4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 46 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Non-migrant Farmers ............................................. 47 4.1.1 Sex ............................................................................................................... 47 4.1.2 Age .............................................................................................................. 47 4.1.3 Marital Status .............................................................................................. 48 4.1.4 Educational Level........................................................................................ 49 4.1.5 Family Size ................................................................................................. 49 4.1.6 Farming Experience .................................................................................... 50 4.2 Causes of Low Food Crop Production and Household Migration Status .................. 50 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii 4.2.1 Disease Problems and Migration Status ...................................................... 54 4.2.2 Drought and Migration Status ..................................................................... 54 4.2.3 Rainfall and Migration Status ..................................................................... 55 4.2.4 Floods and Migration Status ....................................................................... 55 4.2.5 Adverse Climate and Migration Status ....................................................... 55 4.2.6 Soil Fertility and Migration Status .............................................................. 56 4.3 External Financial Support and Adequacy ................................................................. 56 4.4 Farming Processes and Production ............................................................................ 57 4.4.1 Access to Land ............................................................................................ 58 4.4.2 Sources of Labour ....................................................................................... 59 4.4.3 Land Preparation Method ............................................................................ 59 4.4.4 Extension Officers’ Support ........................................................................ 60 4.5 Influence of Migration on Food Crop Production ..................................................... 60 4.6 Influence of Migration on Livelihood of Non-Migrants…...……………………… 61 4.6.1 Contact with Migrant .................................................................................. 63 4.6.2 Migrant Remittance to Household .............................................................. 63 4.6.3 Use of Remittances ..................................................................................... 64 4.6.4 Assistance from Non-migrants to Migrants ................................................ 64 4.6.5 Impact of Migrants on their Household Social Status ................................ 65 4.6.6 Influence of Remittances on Social Status .................................................. 65 4.7 Summary…………………..………………..………………………………….........67 CHAPTER FIVE………...…………………………………………………………….. 69 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ……...………………… 69 5.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 69 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix 5.1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 69 5.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 70 5.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 71 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………... 74 APPENDICES…………………...…………………………………………………….. 80 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh x LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Demographic characteristics of Non-migrants and Crop Production ............. 46 Table 4.2: Causes of Low Food Crop Production on Household Migration Status..........53 Table 4.3: External Financial Support and Adequacy ..................................................... 56 Table 4.4: Farming Processes and Production ................................................................. 58 Table 4.5: Influence of Migration on Food Crop Production .......................................... 61 Table 4.6: Mechanisms and Processes of Farmer Networks............................................ 62 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conceptual Framework.. .................................................................................. 14 Figure 2: Map of the Study Area...................................................................................... 32 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis DFID Department for International Development GDP Gross Domestic Product GLSS Ghana Living Standard Survey GSS Ghana Statistical Services HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Country MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture SADC Southern African Development Community UN United Nations University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I: Questionnaire …………………….. ........................................................... 80 Appendix II: Chi Square Analysis Tables... .................................................................... 88 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND 1.0 Introduction This chapter introduces us to the background to migration, effects of migration, crop production, research problem, research questions and objectives, significance of the study and the organization of chapters. 1.1 Background to the Study Migration is very common in Ghana, with at least one migrant in more than 43 percent of all households in 2005/06. Migration networks in Ghana have been found to be a significant determinant of the likelihood of receiving remittances (Adams, Cuecuecha and Page, 2008), which is one way of measuring success of migration. The persistence of strong migratory flows from rural areas to the towns is a key problem facing Ghana. Rural-urban migration is selectively in favour of males over females, younger over older people, and the better educated over their poorly educated counterparts (Chilimampunga, 2005). The logic of these population movements is both individual and collective and is intrinsically linked to imbalances in the areas of origin. Migration is necessary for the growth and development of nowadays societies, but also detrimental when rural-urban flows exceed the absorptive capacity of towns, leading to a degraded kind of human settlement called “slum” (UN, Habitat Global Report, 2003). Internal migration is attracting increasing attention among academics, researchers, development practitioners, and policy makers, many of who attribute the rapid growth of rural-urban migration in particular, to increasing unemployment and rural poverty in developing countries (Anarfi et al, 2001; UN, 2003). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 Migration is radically changing the socio-economic, demographic and development profile of developing countries, with far-reaching implications for agriculture-based economies. Migration is regarded as a positive force in economic development by enabling poor rural migrants to come out of poverty (World Development Report, 2009). Rural-to-urban migration is a major economic and social phenomenon of nowadays societies (Vercueil, 2004). Migration can help to reduce poverty and increase income, savings and assets. It can lead to the sending of remittances to marginalized sending localities, which can be used to invest in human or in productive assets in sending localities (Deshingkar, 2006). This can play an important role in reducing vulnerability, improving food security, stimulating land markets in sending areas, increase local wages, the demand for local goods and services and generally improving the economy (Deshingkar, 2006). Despite the positive economic and social externalities of large cities, a highly concentrated population brings social costs such as congestion, pollution and crime. The increased demand for housing and overloading of urban facilities sees the poor reside in slums, often lacking access to clean water and sewerage systems. The typical rural worker is a utility-maximising individual who has a choice to produce the agricultural good or migrate to the urban sector in search of waged employment (Cornwell, 2004). The rural worker is enticed to migrate to the urban area in search of work if their expected urban income exceeds their guaranteed rural wage. That is, the choice to migrate depends on a comparison of the expected income from remaining in the rural sector with the expected urban wage (Cornwell, 2004). Most of the internal as well as international migrants are rewarded for their movement through their growing incomes, a better access to education and health facilities, an improvement in the prospects of their children. Human Development University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 Report, 2009 states: “Most people, who travel alone or with their relatives searching better opportunities, hope to be able to live worthy, offering the country of destination their services and workforce skills”. The migrant who builds a house appeals to people of various trades such as bricklayers, painters, tillers, floor layers, plumbers, electricians. Thus, the local market becomes more dynamic. Even if the migrants’ investments are mostly timorous, consumer spending leads to a positive multiplier effect on economic growth. Human development is given by putting people at the center of development (Global Human Development Report, 2009). This means that human beings realize how big their potential is, broaden their choice and take advantage of their freedom to live the life they want. In 2005, 777 million people were food insecure in 70 lower income countries (World Development Report, 2008). On average, there has been a slight decline in the number of hungry people from 688 million in 1992-94 to 639 million in 2002(World Development Report, 2008). Both Asia and the Commonwealth of Independent States experienced a 30-percent drop in the number of hungry people. The number in Latin America and the Caribbean has varied slightly over time, but there has been no discernible trend across the region as a whole. Despite strong growth in food production, Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region where the number of hungry people has risen—over 19 percent—during the last decade (World Development Report, 2008). All over the world the agricultural sector continuous to play a lead role in most developing countries where it contributes significantly to rural development and to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (World Bank, 2008, Quinones et al., 2011). Agriculture is seen to be a fundamental instrument for sustainable development and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 contributed to poverty reduction than other sectors of the economy (World Development Report, 2008). This sector which is described as the backbone and viable sector of the Ghanaian economy is facing a lot of difficulties such as reduction in food production and lack of manpower needs to cultivate the land (World Development Report, 2008). There is no single measure to analyse the level of food security of a population, a community or an individual. Food security is highly complex in that it is determined by a range of inter-related agro-environmental, socioeconomic, and biological factors, all of which have to be addressed to conclude whether food security exists or not (Ghana CFSVA, 2009). According to the World Food Summit organized in Rome in 1996, food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2001). Food security, therefore, implies the provision of safe, nutritious, and quantitatively and qualitatively adequate food, as well as access to it by all people. Among which are reduction in food production and lack of manpower needs to cultivate the land as a result of increasing rural-urban migration on the rural communities. In 2005/2006 the share of the population living in poverty was calculated at 28.5% down from 39.5% in 1998/1999. This makes Ghana one of the few countries that are on track to meet Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 before the target year of 2015 (Ghana CFSVA, 2009). As per the UNDP human development index of 2007/2008, Ghana is in the medium human development category and ranks 135 out of 177 countries (Ghana CFSVA, 2009). These positive developments have inspired the country to graduate from a low income to middle income country over the next six years, by channelling increasing support to the private sector in agriculture. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 Ghana’s graduation would mean an increase in the current national average per capita income of USD 400 to USD 1,000 per year (Ghana CFSVA, 2009). Nevertheless, recent economic progress has not brought about solutions to all of Ghana’s challenges that continue to exist and that, it is argued, may have been aggravated as a result of this rapid economic progress at national level. Although the number of people living below the poverty line may have decreased over the past two decades, the depth of poverty has worsened, has spread into the urban areas and significant regional differences persist. Recent soaring food prices have left the 18% of the population whose income is less than the costs of the minimum food basket even more vulnerable and less resilient (Ghana CFSVA, 2009). 1.2 Research Problem According to Lewis (1966) and Todaro (1970) the rate of rural-urban migration depends on the magnitude of the rural-urban income differential. A range of push and pull factors drive circular migration. Income is one driver, with people migrating in search of paid employment. Migrants may be pushed to migrate by debt, poor access to credit, declining access to common property resources or commodity price crashes (Deshingkar, 2003). Young adult populations have a greater propensity to migrate and permanent migration rates are found to be higher among the more educated, but illiterate and unskilled people appeared to dominate seasonal labour migration (Deshingkar, 2006). Human labour is about the only form of labour available to smallholder farmers and over 85% of total domestic agricultural output in the area is equally not in doubt. It implies that human labour accounts for domestic food supplies. Commentators on farm labour supply have observed that the total supply of labour depends on factors such as the size of the population and its age composition. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 Successive governments put in various interventions at improving food security in the country. Activities undertaken to improve food security in Ghana were concentrated on the following:  Increased production of selected food crops(major staple crops selected as starting point -maize, rice, millet, sorghum, cassava)  Prevention and management of crop and animal diseases • Establishment of Seed Testing and Health Laboratories • Healthy and resistant crop varieties cultivated • Farmers trained in simple methods of preventing and controlling diseases • Use of approved chemicals.  Production and preservation of fish. Measures taken include: • Improved fishing methods devised • Construction and stocking of fishponds ( Production of fingerlings) • Fieldtrips organized to well established research-managed fish farms as tool for technology transfer • Observation and participatory approaches adopted • Government ‘s support to the fishing industry: Supply of pre-mix fuel, Provision of outboard motors and other fishing gear, Construction of fish harbours, Development of the chorkor smoker, A whole ministry, Ministry of Fisheries has been established to see to the development of the fishing industry  Livestock production Despite all the above interventions by successive governments at improving food security in Ghana, the Kpando district is faced with the problem of rural urban- migration. The inadequacy of agricultural incomes, lack of gainful employment, coupled with poverty in rural areas, have appeared to be pushing people out of Kpando District in search of better sources of livelihood in the urban centres since University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 comparison of expected urban income exceeds their guaranteed rural wage. Migration can have indirect bearing on the level of food security on a nation when the number of the more physically active and economically productive and educated members migrate and farming is left in the hands of the old, weak and illiterate members of the household. The low prestige level of agriculture as an occupation has contributed to low participation of people in both the formal and the informal divisions of the sector. Rural-urban migration is caused by poverty, unemployment, situations of violence, imprisonment, conflict between generations, land pressure, etc. (Maria, 2010). Over 800 million people worldwide are food insecure. Ghanaians, no exception though the economy is endowed with numerous natural resources. Ineffective production techniques, low yielding crop varieties, inadequate supplies of water among others constraints to the achievement of food security. Households must have reliable supply of food to maintain good health (Gyamfi, 2006). The livelihood of the rural people is largely dependent on agriculture; however agricultural activities in the Kpando District seem not to sustain the people and not making recognizable impact in the area of poverty reduction. According to Berdegue and Escobar, (2001) the realizations of higher incomes by farmers from their agricultural activities contribute to improvement in their living standard. According to Braunvan, (2004) people tend to be pulled to the areas of prosperity and pushed from areas of decline. Migrants are usually concerned with the benefits they hope to gain by moving and usually give less thought to the problems that may be generated as a result of the process. The upsurge in rural-urban migration leading to active population leaving rural areas which serves as the food baskets of the nation has the propensity of affecting food crop productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 The Kpando District is basically agrarian community and the major crops cultivated include maize, cassava, yam, garden egg, tomato and pepper among others, but the district is characterized by mass out-migration of the youth. The Kpando District has been faced with out-migration of its labour for decades now. The out-migration of labour force from the area which is predominantly agricultural is perceived to be the cause of labour shortage for agriculture and therefore shortage in food crop production. This together with poor and declining soil fertility and adverse climatic changes continue to intensify migration in the district. The out-migration of the agricultural labour force caused by unemployment, poor soil fertility and climatic changes has affected food crop productivity leading to food insecurity and low farm incomes in the study area. In spite of several interventions, the households are not able to produce enough to feed themselves and for sale. The study seeks to assess labour migration, food crop production and remittance linkages of rural households in the Kpando District of the Volta Region of Ghana. 1.3 Research Questions The study will answer the following research questions; i. How do the demographic characteristics of non-migrants and migrants influence food crop production in the Kpando District? ii. What is the impact of the causes of low food crop production on household migration status in the Kpando District? iii. How does migration affect food crop production in the Kpando District? iv. How does migration influence livelihoods in the Kpando District? University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 1.4 Objectives of the Study The main objective of this study is to assess the linkages between the causes of labour migrations, food crop production, remittances and livelihood of rural households in the Kpando district of the Volta Region in Ghana. Specifically the study seeks to; 1. describe the influence of demographic characteristics of non-migrants and migrants on food crop production, 2. describe the influence of low food crop production on household migration status, 3. examine the effects of rural-urban migration on the production of food crops, and 4. examine the impact of migration on livelihood in the sending areas. 1.5 Significance of the Study The role of agriculture in rural development is relevant in areas such as food security, poverty alleviation and also helps to maintain the labour force in the rural communities. The study will provide an insight into the effect(s) of rural-urban migration on food crop productivity, food security and livelihood in order to take measures to reduce rural-urban migration and increase food crop productivity and livelihood in Ghana and in the Kpando District in particular. The study will provide means of making agriculture a viable enterprise in the rural communities as it will serve as a reference for a further research for planning and formulation of policies for Agriculture Development in Ghana. The results from this work would be relevant for rural development that could check the growth of urban slums and improve public service delivery in urban and rural areas. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 1.6 Organization of the Study This thesis is organised into five chapters. Chapter one introduces the background to the study on labour migration and food security, the problem the research seeks to address, objectives, justification of the study. Chapter two deals with review of concepts, reasons for migration, determinants of migration, types of migration, advantages and disadvantages of migration and food security. Chapter three is the methodology, methods of data analysis, the study area, sampling, data collection and statistical tools employed in the study. Chapter four outlines results and discussion. Chapter five presents a summary of major findings, conclusions and policy recommendations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction This chapter reviews the relevant theoretic and empirical literature on agriculture labour migration, low food crop production, remittances and the effects of migration on livelihood of rural farmers. The literature is a vital stage in every research to avoid duplication of research and to understand works in the field and to be updated with current works. The literature review process is defined as sequential steps to collect, know, comprehend, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate quality literature in order to provide a firm foundation to a topic and research method. Literature was reviewed on the conceptual framework, the theoretical framework, current trends of rural urban migration in Ghana, macro-economic situation of Ghana, farm households and poverty, migration and household welfare, changing causes and drivers of migration, agriculture in Ghana and agriculture for food security. 2.1 Theoretical Framework 2.1.1 “Push-Pull” Model of Migration The push-pull model is basically an individual choice and equilibrium model. Most researchers who have applied the push-pull framework have assumed that various environmental, demographic, and economic factors determine migration decisions. Two main forces are typically distinguished to create the pushes and pulls: (1) rural population growth causing a Malthusian pressure on natural and agricultural resources, and pushing people out of marginal rural areas, and (2) economic conditions (higher wages) lure people into cities and industrialized countries (Skeldon 1997:20; King and Schneider 1991; Schwartz and Notini 1994). At first University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 sight, the push-pull model seems attractive, as it is apparently able to incorporate all the factors that play a role in migration decision-making. Because of its apparent ability to integrate other theoretical insights, it has been frequently suggested that a general view of labour migration could best be achieved using a push-pull framework (Bauer & Zimmermann 1998; Schoorl 1998). Besides wage differentials, factors such as population pressure, demographic pressure, or environmental degradation have commonly been postulated as “root causes” of migration (King & Schneider 1991; Schwartz et al., 1994; Zachariah et al 2001). Farrag, (1997) stated for that in addition to landlessness per se, emigration dynamics were clearly influenced by small farm size, marginal ecological conditions that render cash cropping unviable, depleted soil fertility caused by population pressure on limited land and low levels of farm income in sub-Saharan Africa. 2.1.2 Todaro Model of Migration Todaro’s migration model is an economic model which attributes migration to the standard assumptions of rationality. The model seeks to explain migration as a function of the income differential adjusted for the probability of finding a job. The model postulates that migration proceeds in response to urban-rural differences in expected income rather than actual earnings. Expected urban income is adjusted by the likelihood that migrant will find a job in the urban area when he migrates. The likelihood that the migrant will be selected for a job in the urban area depends on the rate of job creation in the urban area which is in turn dependent upon the rate of industrial growth and growth of labour productivity in the area. Todaro’s model thus showed that the unemployment rate of an area is dependent on the job creation and income differential in the area (Sridhar et al., 2010). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 2.1.3 New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) This new approach allows for integrating factors other than individual income maximization as influencing migration decision-making. The new economics of labour migration models migration as risk-sharing behaviour of families or households. Better than individuals, households seem able to diversify their resources, such as labour, in order to minimize income risks (Stark & Levhari, 1982). The fundamental assumption is that people, households and families act not only to maximize income, but also to minimize and spread risks. Internal and international migration is perceived as a household response to income risk, as migrant remittances provide income insurance for households of origin. This risk-spreading motive can even explain the occurrence of migration in the absence of (expected) wage differentials. The basic idea is that for the household as a whole it may be a Pareto-superior strategy to have members migrates elsewhere, either as a means of risk sharing or as an investment in access to higher earnings streams (Lucas & Stark, 1985). 2.2 Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for the study is shown in Figure 1 on page 15. The farm household (households who engage in crop and/livestock farming) is found to exist between pull and push factors (Barrett et al., 2001). These factors determine the engagement in various income diversification strategies by the household in order to overcome poverty and food insecurity. This further supports the household to accumulate income for farm expansion and non-farm business engagement among other motives (Dimova and Sen, 2010, Lay and Schuler, 2008). The push factors present themselves as challenges which force farm households into income diversification. These push factors relate to risks: price, climatic (rainfall, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 temperature, humidity etc.), challenges associated with availability and cost of farm inputs as well as infrastructure challenges in terms of inaccessibility to good roads. In addition, long distances to major markets, high transaction cost associated with doing business underpin the reasons why a household enters into diversification. Figure 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SOURCE: Adapted from Sustainable Livelihood Framework (DFID) (Scoones, 1998; Carney et al, 1999). The conceptual framework guiding this research is the body of work known as the sustainable livelihoods approach or framework (Scoones, 1998; Bebbington, 1999; PUSH FACTORS • Famine, drought, natural disasters • Poor living conditions - housing, education and health care • Agricultural change • Unemployment • War and conflict TRANSFORMING STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES STRUCTURES  Levels of Government  Private Sector PROCESSES  Laws  Policies  Institutions MIGRANTS MIGRANTS LIVELIHOOD ASSETS Human, Natural, Social, Physical & Financial Capitals AGRO-SYSTEMS OF KPANDO Livelihood Strategies PULL FACTORS • Employment • Higher incomes • Better healthcare and Education • Urban facilities and way of life • Protection from conflict NON- MIGRANTS University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 Carney et al, 1999; Ellis and Freeman, 2005). In the agricultural sector, livelihoods analysis is essential. Firstly, it builds on better understanding of multiple perspectives and values water as economic capital (agricultural input, domestic needs), physical capital (irrigation infrastructure), managerial and institutional capital (water organisations), social capital (collective action) as well as political capital (Ashley and Carney, 1999, cited in Nicol, 2000). It assesses gains and losses of the rural poor from water reforms (Lankford, 2005). It improves the knowledge of the context from the local level upwards and helps to analyse opportunities and constraints of the rural poor to benefit from the changes within the given context (Nicol, 2000). It helps to identify what options have better potential to reduce poverty within the given context and what enabling conditions, policies and incentives are needed for the poor to increase the range of better livelihood options (Scoones, 1998; Ellis, 2000; Moriarty et al., 2004; Lankford, 2005). Some distinctive features of the livelihoods framework are that it takes an ‘all-round’ view of people’s means of gaining a living, including the social and institutional circumstances in which people’s livelihoods are embedded. At the centre of the approach is a relationship between the assets or resources that people own or can obtain access to, including land, irrigation water, and skill and education levels of family members, which are categorised as natural, human, social, financial and political capitals (Scoones, 1998; Ellis and Freeman, 2005). The households utilise these assets in their productive activities in order to create income and satisfy their consumption needs, maintain their asset levels and invest in their future activities. The access to the assets is strongly influenced by the vulnerability context, policies and institutions. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 2.3 Current Trends of Migration A significant feature of livelihoods in developing countries is the frequent migration of individuals and households in pursuit of better living standards. Ever since the seminal work of Ravenstein (1885), numerous studies have explored various aspects of this pervasive phenomenon. Issues covered by the literature include the rationale for migrating (Sjaastad, 1962; Todaro, 1969; and Lucas and Stark, 1985), migration patterns (Ravenstein, 1885; Lee, 1966), and the welfare impacts of these population movements (Falaris, 1987; Litchfield and Waddington, 2003). The enormous research interest in migration is a reflection of the prevalence of this livelihood activity. In recent years, the migration literature has given considerable coverage to International migration (Funkhouser, 1995; Faist, 2000; Adams and Page, 2005). This has been mainly due to the effects of this form of migration on remittances and labour supply. For many developing countries, though, internal migration is a very important feature of households’ livelihoods. The literature on internal migration has, however, been dominated by studies that focus on rural-to urban migration (Harris and Todaro, 1970; Bhattacharya, 1993; Lucas, 2004). This emphasis on rural-to- urban migration is attributable – at least partly – to the rising levels of urbanisation in these countries, a phenomenon exemplifying the existence of various linkages between rural and urban sectors. 2.4 Macro-economic Situation of Ghana The 2010 provisional census results estimated Ghana’s population at 24,233,431 made up of 11,801,661 males (48.7 %) and 12, 421,770 females (51.3%). Ghana’s population growth rate declined from 2.7 percent per annum to 2.4 percent between University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 2000 and 2010 (GSS, 2011). The population of Ghana is very youthful, with an estimated 33.3 percent trapped in the 15 to 35 years age bracket. Ghana has made some progress in establishing and maintaining a sound and stable macroeconomic environment, a break from the numerous setbacks suffered in the early years of postcolonial rule. The establishment of an independent Monetary Policy Committee, government’s fiscal discipline and the debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative created a conducive environment for macroeconomic stability and accelerated growth. Ghana’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate has risen to 5 percent in the past 25 years, from an average of 4 percent in the mid-1980s. In the last three years, average growth has exceeded 6 percent. According to the Ghana Statistical Services, Ghana’s GDP growth rate in 2008 was 8.4 percent, the highest in two decades. In 2009, Ghana registered a decline in GDP growth rate (4.0 %) but that was attributed to the global economic crisis and other domestic fiscal challenges. Revised GDP growth rate in 2010 was 7.7 percent (GSS, May 2011). Provisional estimates indicate that Ghana’s growth rate for 2011 is 13.6%, driven largely by high growth rate of 36.2% by industry compared to its 5.6% growth in 2010. 2.5 Labour Market Situation in Ghana The Ghana Living Standard Survey V (GLSSV, 2005/2006) conducted by the Ghana Statistical Services (GSS) showed that seven out of every ten of the working age population (15 and 64years) is economically active. Males recorded a higher activity rate (54.9%) compared to females (53.4%). Economic activity rate is also higher in rural areas (58.6 %) compared to urban areas (47.3%). Majority of the employed are concentrated in three major sectors of the economy namely agriculture (55.8%), trading (15.2%) and manufacturing (10.9%). Other industry groups employ about 18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 percent of the employed. More urban workers are engaged in non-agricultural activities (43%) whereas their rural counterparts work mainly in agriculture (75%) (GSS, 2008). Among the working age population (15-64) there are more males (25%) in wage employment compared to females (8.2%). Wage employment is prevalent in urban areas (33.8%) compared to rural areas (7.3%). Two thirds (66.7%) of working people are employed in the private sector and the remaining in the public service (28.5%). Apprentices constitute about 2.3 percent of the employed population. As indicated earlier, employment in Ghana is predominantly informal. More than 80 percent of the employed are working in the informal sector. Over half of the employed (55.9%) are own-account workers (self-employed); 20.4 percent are employed in family enterprises and17.6 percent are wage employees. Majority of the employed (80%) operate in three main occupational categories such as agriculture/fishery workers (55.1%), craft and related trades workers (13.4%) and services/ sales workers (13%). More urban workers are engaged in non-agricultural activities (43%) whereas their rural counterparts work mainly in agriculture (75%) (GSS, 2008). The majority (30.5%) of self-employed are into agriculture (without employees). This was followed closely (23.6%) by contributing family workers also into agriculture (without employees). There are also employees, contributing family workers and apprentices engaged in non-agricultural economic activities. The GLSS5 (2006) estimated unemployment the at rate of 3.6 percent for the working age population (15 years and above) and underemployment11, wherein some of the employed are working for 40 hours a week or less and desire more hours of work, rate of 7.3 percent. Unemployment rate is about the same for males and females but it is much higher in urban areas (6.3%) particularly Accra (8.9%), the capital city, compared to rural areas (1.6%). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 Generally however, unemployment is believed to be higher than estimated. The presumed under-estimation of unemployment is attributed to the definition adopted by the Ghana Statistical Services. The Ghana Statistical Services defined the unemployed to include all persons who did not work but were actively seeking work or were at least available to take up work if they were offered during the reference period of the survey (i.e., the last seven days prior to the survey). Using this definition, people who were engaged in any form of economic activity, whether on gratis or for income/profit were regarded employed. 2.6 Meeting the Millennium Development Goals Poverty reduction in both countries requires growth in employment and increased productivity in smallholder agriculture and this largely depends on economic growth, continued investment in human capital and increased ownership and control of assets by the poor, land included. In order to achieve these results a more efficient use of the abundant labour resources, scarce agricultural land, capital and managerial skills is necessary. Well-documented experiences of good practices and identification of the new production technologies that will enhance the production systems in rural and peri-urban agriculture would be welcome for the process of economic integration in SADC. A closer working relationship between government, the private sector and research institutions is necessary for the research output from universities and colleges to be turned into policy and development instruments. Development oriented research is necessary to inform all the above assertions to ensure that sustainable development goals are achieved at minimum ecological and social costs. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 2.7 Farm Households and Poverty Food insecurity and poverty are closely related. The two concepts are therefore high on the agenda of rural development issues (Oni et al., 2011). According to Dixon et al., (2001), the poor live in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. Schwarze and Zeller (2005), found poverty index to have a positive influence on the income share derived from outside the agricultural sector, making the better off households diversify more out of agriculture. Moreover, Lanjouw (2001), found rural farm households in El Salvador to be associated with acute poverty than their urban counterparts. It is therefore obvious that farm households continue to find means to exit poverty and food insecurity concerns especially through non-farm income generating actives and cash crop production (Lanjouw and Feder, 2001 and Knudsen and Tidsskrift, 2007). 2.8 Migration and Household Welfare A household is likely to send a migrant when the expected value of the migrant’s remittances exceeds his/her net contribution to the household welfare prior to migration. With perfect foresight, migration would always be welfare-enhancing: that is, a household would only send a migrant if the value of that migrant’s marginal product net of his or her consumption is less than the received remittances. However, because received remittances can vary greatly from expected remittances, the ex post impact of migration on welfare may be positive or negative. The impact of migration on welfare and poverty depends primarily on the likelihood, amount, and frequency of remittances sent back to the household by the migrant. Although there may be other channels through which migration affects poverty - reduced population pressure, increase in the average skill levels in the origin communities if migrants enhance their human capital while away—migration has an University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 impact on welfare and poverty primarily through remittances. In Ghana, however, the relationship between migration and remittances is complex, as documented in the existing literature (Adams, Cuecuecha and Page, 2008). Other important determinants of the likelihood to migrate noted by Caldwell (1968) include presence of friends or relatives in the destination locality. Remittances sent by migrants in the urban areas to the rural origin communities in raising the welfare of households sending migrants and narrowing the welfare gap between rural and urban communities. 2.9 The Changing Causes and Drivers of Migration The decision to migrate in Ghana has often been a response to a combination of several factors, including economic, social and political and environmental factors such as poverty, landlessness and economic dislocations. These factors are also often linked to factors such as trade, urbanisation and the growth of administrative sectors, agriculture, land degradation and rural poverty to induce migration, both internal and international. Poverty and lack of employment opportunities have been stated as main contributory factors for many young people moving from their rural communities to urban centres (Adu-Gyamfi, 2001; Anarfi et al. 2003; Anarfi and Kwankye, 2005). The labour force of a household determines the size of land that it acquires which consequently results in the households desire to move into non-farm activities (Minot et al., 2006). On the basis of farm size, Nyanteng and Seini (2000) states that “over 90% of the country’s food production is derived from farm holdings of 3 hectares or less”. Moreover, in a study by Adeleke et al., (2010), smallholders were described as farmers having land holdings of 2 hectares or less with few heads of livestock. The term “smallholder farmer” has however become relative due the geographical and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 ecological differences in categorizing smallholders across in the world of which Ghana is no exception. The Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2011) in Ghana maintains that agriculture is predominantly practiced on smallholder basis. Social amenities such as electricity, pipe water, credit, infrastructure such as good roads, insurance markets etc. in addition to socio-economic characteristics: Age, size of household, education, gender, among others are also driving forces behind the immigration of farm households (Schwarze and Zeller, 2005; Enete and Achike, 2008; Barrett and Reardon, 2000; Ibrahim et al.,2009; Babatunde and Qaim, 2009). Recent studies however show a changing trend. Young females now form the majority in internal migrations from northern Ghana to urban centres in the south. They mostly work as porters (‘kayayei’), in market centres and lorry stations (Awumbila and Ardayfio-Schandorf, 2008, Anarfi and Kwankye 2003; 2005). Many female migrants now move independently through networks of friends and relations. This means that contrary to earlier studies that identified women as migrating mostly to join partners therefore making them dependants, young females in the current migration flow tend not to be just dependants but autonomous migrants who have made their decision and move despite the fact that there may be no family member at the destination area (Adepoju, 2004; Wiredu, 2004; Anarfi et al. 2006; Whitehead et al., 2007). Recent migration literature also show that though generally, there has been an upsurge in the number of migrants who are predominantly youth and who also engage in irregular migration within and outside the African region, including Ghana, migration is feminising (Adepoju, 2004). In the Ghanaian case, it has to do with the young females who migrate from the northern regions to the cities of Accra University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 to engage mainly in the ‘kayayoo’ business. To the extent that there are changing trends in migration flows with diversity in destinations, Adepoju (2004) notes that there is a changing trend from labour migration to commercial migration where people now travel with an alternative option of self-employment instead of being migrants engaging in menial jobs. These changes confirm the complexities associated with migration and the need to adopt a multidisciplinary approach in researching these issues. This will enable different perspectives to be considered to enrich the quality and reliability of migration data collected. Poverty, lack of education and employment possibilities, the need to purchase items for marriage and some socio-cultural factors have also contributed to the exodus of migration, especially by female youth and children in Ghana in recent times(Awumbila and Ardayfio-Schandorf, 2008). Poverty is often cited as a cause of migration in Ghana (Nabila, 1975; Anarfi et al., 2003; Anarfi and Kwankye, 2005). What is often lost in the literature however is that, while agreeing that migration can result from poverty; it is not always the poorest and most destitute who migrate. Poverty as a cause of migration operates under selective principle. The poorest are often unable to afford the costs associated with migration. In addition, Awumbila and Ardayfio-Schandorf, (2008) argue that, poverty may also be as a result of migration. In families and communities where husbands and the active productive youth populations have migrated, poverty among children, wives, elderly people and other dependants may be worsened. This line of argument clearly interrogates the poverty migration nexus. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 2.10 Internal Migration in Ghana Internal migration in Ghana According to Oderth (2002) migration has shaped the nature of both receiving and places of origin more than any other phenomenon in human geography. Black et al (2004:12) attests that, internal migration between and within urban and rural areas, account for most migratory movements in West Africa. Demographic literature on internal migration in developing countries is filled with generally accepted ideas about the type of people who are more likely to move, the determinants of moving, and the consequences of mobility (Reed et al, 2005:2). Rural–urban migration is not only common in Ghana but is a major pattern of flow of migrants in West Africa (Awumbila et al. 2012). This implies that more people are leaving the more agrarian communities and other rural economic engagements in search of jobs in the towns and cities. The decision to migrate in Ghana is usually a response to a combination of many factors (Awumbila et al. 2011:27), from economic, social, and political to environmental factors such as poverty, landlessness and economic dislocation. In addition to this, migrants often move from resource poor to resource rich areas (Anarfi and Kwankye, 2003). While the Litchfield and Waddington (2003) study did not control for the selection bias in the migration decision, studies by Tsegai (2005) and Boakye-Yiadom (2008) took explicit account of the non-random selection of migrants. Tsegai (2005) found that incomes of migrant households are higher than those of otherwise comparable non migrant households, but the coverage of his study was limited to the Volta Basin. Boakye-Yiadom (2008), using data from the 1998/99 round of GLSS (GLLS 4), found that, although some rural-urban migrants experienced welfare losses, on average, rural urban migration significantly enhanced the welfare of internal migrants. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 According to the ACPMD Report (2006), Remittances are one of the developmental effects of migration; and such effects are felt most distinctly at the individual or household level but also at the community or national levels. Today, it is widely acknowledged that remittances play a significant financial role in developing nations as they form part of income from services and contribute to the country‘s balance of payments. Official flows from developed and developing countries combined reach nearly $100 billion annually and the actual figure (that is, including flows not channelled through formal financial systems) may be as high as twice that amount. Remittances are therefore more sizeable than foreign aid. However, there are difficulties encountered particularly with respect to the high cost of effecting remittances. 2.11 Migration as a Coping Strategy Stark (1991) supports the arguments that migration is not only a consequence of income gap but responds as well to other individual or familial incentives. Individuals are migration actors who search to maximize the expected income of the household and at the same time to minimize risks. There is a changing age composition of migrant flows that is reflected in the increasing number of children, adolescent and youth who are migrating independently of parents. Whether migration is forced, as reflected in the very high percentage of children in refugee camps, or voluntary, the special needs of children, adolescent and youth in terms of providing adequate health care, education, shelter and protection from rights violations, involvement in armed conflicts present special challenges to developing states (ACPMD Report 2006:7). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 Konseiga (2005:3) in considering household units said the New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) shows that the easing of the surplus and risk constraints is a crucial condition for the small farmer to carry out desired technological change. Thus, migration and remittances could increase production output of the migrant household if they release the constraints that are limiting the expansion of their activity. The resulting benefits are expected to be stronger in the case of seasonal migration as opposed to geographically distant and permanent migration. On the other hand, adhering to the World Bank/IMF dictates, governments have been forced to reduce the size of the public sector, in many developing countries, the leading source of jobs, and the private sector has generally followed suit to drive up rates of unemployment for both family heads and young people. The costs of structural adjustment have reduced access to education, health, food, and social services by removing subsidies, thus reducing the overall welfare of families, particularly the poor (Adepoju, 1996). Cost-recovery strategies - a burden that is heaviest for the poor, the region‘s majority - call for families to pay the full cost of health and education at a time when family heads are increasingly jobless. Parents, unable to pay school fees, grudgingly withdraw their children from school. The cumulative result is that the average African today is probably less well educated, less well fed, less well employed, and less well paid than in the immediate aftermath of independence (Adepoju, 2005). The dismal economic forecasts for the foreseeable future combine to stimulate emigration of especially young persons (Adepoju 2008:6). 2.12 Agriculture in Ghana Agriculture is clearly important, but its priority must be judged by how much of a real difference it can make to the lives of Ghanaians. Agriculture has a central role to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 play in promoting growth and poverty reduction in the Ghanaian economy at this stage of our development and Ghana needs an agricultural revolution based on productivity growth; this will raise almost a million more Ghanaians out of poverty by 2015, improve rural livelihoods significantly, and make a dent in the poverty of the rural. Ghana’s recent agricultural performance has been impressive, but raises questions of sustainability. In the period 2001-6, it has grown by 5.5% annually, with a lot of this growth occurring in crops—both cocoa and non-cocoa, including some new horticultural products such as fruits and vegetables. However, it is not seen as sustainable for two reasons. First, the historical average rate of agricultural growth has been lower: 2% for 1991-95, and 3.9% for 1996-2000. Second, the recent growth spurt has been driven largely by extension of the land under cultivation, and by little or no productivity growth. The scope for productivity growth is large: data on yield gaps between Ghanaian productivity levels for crops, compared to achievable yields, shows gaps in the range of 20% for oil palm, to 40% for maize and rice, to 60% for cocoa. Overall, therefore, complacency is ill advised (MoFA, 2011). 2.13 Agriculture for Food Security Food security is a wide concept, ranging from the household to the national level. It is not the same as food self-sufficiency. Increasing agricultural production based on productivity growth is a necessary condition for food security. The 2008 food price crisis drew attention once more to food security questions. Prices of commonly traded foods such as rice and wheat rose by 50 to 75 percent over a matter of weeks. Agricultural policy is important for Ghana’s development for the following reasons - Poverty Reduction, Growth, Food Security and Climate Change. Countries typically move through three phases from agriculture-based, to transforming and then to urbanized (MoFA, 2011). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 2.14 Summary This chapter dealt with the definition of conceptual terminologies, the conceptual framework for the study and review of relevant literature on migration in Ghana and elsewhere and food crop production. Different disciplines of migration theories were discussed since none of the theories can singly explain migration phenomena. The theories discussed formed theoretical framework of the study. It has also provided the empirical evidence to understand the effects of migration on rural households, the types of migration and the advantages and the disadvantages of migration and basis for analysing the determinants of migration, causes of low food production and the effects of remittances. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction The methodology is basically a presentation of how the research was conducted. Methodology is a coherent set of rules and procedures, which is used to investigate a phenomenon or situation (Kitchin and Tate, 2000:6). According to Schwandt (2001:161), methodology is a theory of how inquiry should proceed. According to Shurmer-Smith (2002:95), methodology is not just a matter of practicalities and techniques; it is a matter of marrying up theory with practices. It means when one adopts a particular theoretical position, some methods will suggest themselves and others become inappropriate, for both theoretical and practical reasons. It also forms the actual techniques adopted in the data collection process (Harding, 1987; Fonow and Cook, 1991). This chapter presents a brief description of the methodology used for the study. This includes sampling and methods for addressing the specific objectives, the study area, types of individuals in the study area, major forms of informal sector activities in Ghana, target population, the sampling technique, data collection procedures and the procedure used for data analysis. 3.1 Research Design The study adopted a survey approach using questionnaires and structured interviews. A survey collects views and opinions of a representative sample of a population for generalization (Smith & Davis, 2004).The combination of qualitative and quantitative data was needed for this research in order to enable a rigorous investigation without omission of important details and insights, different University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 perspectives as well as statistics(Bryman, 2004; Burgess 2001; Chambers, 2004; Kanbur, 2004). 3.2 Survey Procedures In each village, a questionnaire was administered to households from which one or more members have emigrated. The information collected includes data on the socio- economic characteristics of the household, the number of migrants per household, causes of low food crop production, involvement of households in migration, the different sources of income and the household remittances. The socio-demographic variables include the level of education and age of members of household, size of the household and production technology used by the household. 3.3 The Study Area The Kpando district is one of the administrative districts in the Volta Region of Ghana with its centre at Kpando. The district is boarded by the Hohoe District at the north, Jasikan District at the east, the North Dayi at the south with the beautiful Volta Lake forming the western border. The Kpando District is a district of Ghana in the Volta Region. It is one of the oldest administrative districts in the country dating back to the colonial era. Some of the towns located in the district include Vakpo, Wusuta, KpanduTorkor, Dzigbe, Togorme, Sovie, Anfoega Adame, Anfoega Akukome, Gbefi-Hoeme, Fesi, Gbefi-Tornu, and Dzana. The Kpando District south of Kpando town is inhabited primarily by members of the Ewe Tribe, although a portion of the Kpando town center, known as "Zongo Town", is occupied by Moslem people from northern tribes. The people are mostly Ewe speaking nationals. The Kpando district, with an area of 769.8 square kilometres (km²) and a density of 121.7 inh. / km² [2010]. The district has a total of 93,649 populations (GSS, 2010) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 and covers an area of 769.8 square kilometres (km²) and with a density of 121.7 inh. / km² [2010].The district lies within latitudes 6° 20’N and 7005’N, and Longitude 00 17’E. Kpando, the district capital, is 90 km from Ho, the Regional capital. The location of the municipality places it at a very strategic position with potential for fast economic development. The people who live here mostly farm, fish, operate commercial vehicles, kaolin mining or work in petty trading. An interesting and attractive vocation of the indigenous people across the district is pottery making and wood carving. Many of their beautiful crafts can be found only in the Kpando district made exclusively by natives of Kpando and Vakpo. The vegetation in the area is partly savannah woodland and forest, with famous rivers like the Volta and the River Dayi. The main crops that are grown here are vegetables, rice, maize, chines yam, water yam, and cassava. The marshy lands combined with the rivers and the Volta Lake make the land favorable for season farming. Due to the good soil the district is able to grow most of Ghana’s dry season vegetables, with the leading crop being garden eggs and okra. There are several tourist attractions in the area with the Volta Lake, with its scatted beautiful islands, providing good sightseeing activities. There are two grottos (Blues of Urs Grotto at Kpando Aziave and Ladies of Lourdes Grotto at Kpando Agbenoxoe), the Wli Waterfalls, and a Monkey Sanctuary. Source: http://ghanadistrict.com University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 Figure 1: Map of Kpando District Source: MoFA, Kpando University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 3.4 Types of Individuals in the Study Area Non-migrants: Individuals, who were present at the time of the survey and who, if ever away from the household, came back more than five years ago and have not left the household since that time. Return migrants: individuals who were away from the household for some time in the last five years but have since returned to the household. For return migrants, information is available both from the migration and remittance module (e.g., duration of migration, amount of remittances sent, education and occupation before migration, etc.) as well as from the general part of the survey (because they were interviewed for the general survey as any other household member). However, it is not guaranteed that the return migrant him/herself answered the questions in the migration and remittances module. Migrants: individuals who were away from the household at the time of the survey. For migrants, the only information available is that recalled by the interviewed remaining household members because the migrants themselves were never interviewed.  Emigrant: A person who is leaving a country to live in another.  Immigrant: A person who is entering a country from another to make a new home. 3.5 Major Forms of Informal Sector Activities in Ghana 3.5.1 Forms of Informal Economic Activities in Ghana Data for the discussion on the form and nature of informal sector in Ghana is drawn largely from literature documented by Adu-Amankwah (1999) in his analysis of a GTUC leadership group survey in 1995. The informal sector in Ghana can be categorized under two (2) broad sectors: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 (i) Rural informal sector (ii) Urban informal sector 3.5.2 The Rural Informal Labour For the rural sector, the following features were identified: (i) Agricultural activities: These are predominantly farming units dependent on family labour and are made up of a large number of small farmers in the rural and semi-urban areas. The farmers are mostly illiterate or semi-illiterate and have no formal training. Farming skills reacquired through apprenticeship. Family labour and low–technology pooled labour is what is usually available and land is acquired typically on usufruct basis from family and community assets. (ii) Fishing and fish processing activities: These are found mostly along Ghana’s coastline and are mainly composed of married males aged between 18 and 40 years. These predominantly illiterate workers acquired their swimming skills through experience from their early childhood. The value added and processing activities that include smoking and marketing the fish is basically undertaken by women who are either wives or close relatives of the fishermen. (iii) Rural agro-based processing activities: These include processing cassava into gari, cassava dough; palm kernel, groundnut and copra oils, palm wine tapping, local pito brewery, local gin distillery, and traditional soap-making. These activities are dominated by married female workers, and predominantly illiterate. Their skills are acquired from within the family. Their experience of seasonal underemployment is pronounced. Mostly married, with children, they lack social security protection. There are also the forest product workers, mostly male, namely, carpenters, rattan and bamboo craftsmen, wood carvers and woodworking machine operators. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35 3.5.3 Types of Labour in Rural Informal Economy Drawing from the above, the types of labour in the rural informal economy as identified by Adu-Amankwah (1999) are described below. It is worth emphasizing that the different kinds of employment contracts under which the various types of rural labour are engaged constitute their distinguishing features: (i) Family labour: Family labour is a distinctive characteristic of rural informal labour. It permeates all the sub-sectors within rural agriculture. It is predominant in both food and cash crop farming, and in fishing and agro-processing. From a labour market and economic standpoint, family labour is considered crucial for the survival and viability of the enterprise. It is also used as a kind of apprenticeship for the transfer of skills from one generation to the next. (ii) Casual labour: Known in local parlance as “by-day”, it is the next major type of labour in the rural informal sector. It is prevalent in the food and cash crop sub-sector where it is needed to carry out work including land clearing, preparation of mounds, planting, weeding, fertilizer and chemical application, and harvesting. Casual labour exists under different kinds of contract, and has a high level of mobility migrating from the northern half of the country and even from beyond the northern borders (from Burkina Faso) to work on cocoa, coconut and oil palm farms in the Asante, Eastern and Western regions of Ghana. In the Brong Ahafo region, these workers are engaged on maize and yam farms and perform a variety of assignments, such as land-clearing and preparation, the making of mounds, and planting. They return to their regions of origin to make use of the farming season there also. Where they are not migrants, many casual workers also have their own University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 36 farms where they grow crops for subsistence. Payment for casual workers is in cash, but can also be in kind. (iii) Apprenticeship: In Ghana, there is a highly developed apprenticeship system where young men and women undertake sector-specific private training, which yields skills used primarily in the informal sector. Apprentices make up nearly 25% of working-age Ghanaians (Monk et al., 2008). In the rural informal economy, systems of apprenticeship exist within the fisheries and the agro-processing sub- sectors - especially in oil palm extraction, coconut oil extraction and shea butter processing. Apprentices are normally not paid, but they may receive cash as pocket money or, as in fishing, be provided for in kind, for example fish. (iv) Permanent labour: This constitutes a relatively small proportion of the rural agricultural labour force. The size of the farm and the degree of permanence of the crop type determines to a large extent the permanence of labour. Perennial tree crops like cocoa, oil palm, coconut and rubber produce permanent workers. (v) Communal labour: This is an arrangement by which farmers within an area bound by common agreement pool their labour together to assist each other in turns. Traditionally, most West African societies have relied on forms of cooperative labour for the provision of public amenities. All able bodied people belonging to a village would pool their labour periodically under the auspices of the chiefs and clan leaders to construct and/or maintain public facilities such as tracks and pathways to the farms and creeks where water was collected, build and maintain the village gathering or meeting place, as well as organize fighting forces to protect the village from intruders. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 37 (vi) Child labour: This form of labour is an important component of the informal sector workforce. It is an integral part of family labour, especially in the rural agricultural environment especially. Different categories of children are found in the labour chain in rural communities in Ghana: those who have never been to school, those who have dropped out of school and those who are still in school but assist their parents. Some children are engaged by a parent or a close family member and may be paid or not. There are also children employed by non-relatives. Such children are usually out of school and fully on the labour market. Child workers are engaged in a wide range of economic activities. In the fisheries sub-sector across the coastal belt, these include mending nets, net dragging, scooping water out of canoe, cleaning canoes and portage. In the farming areas, noticeably in the Northern and Upper East regions, child workers are engaged in land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting, shea nut picking and processing. In the rice farms, both in the north and southern Ghana, children, especially girls, act as bird scares and operate from sunrise to sunset (Adu-Amankwah, 1999). 3.5.4. Urban Informal Workers The urban informal sector in Ghana, as elsewhere in Africa (Adu-Amankwa, 1999), is remarkable for its heterogeneity and variety. As indicated earlier a study of the urban informal economy in Ghana by Hart in the 1970s was the turning point for studies on informal economies in developed and developing economies around the world. Studies on the urban informal sector in Ghana reveal a wide range of operations in the urban informal sector that can be grouped under (i) services; (ii) construction; and (iii) manufacturing. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 38 (i) Services • Urban food traders and processors include food sellers in the market, itinerant wholesalers and retailers, bakers, caterers and cooked-food sellers. These workers are mostly women, predominantly illiterate or semi-illiterate. They acquire their knowledge and skills largely from family. They are also low-income earners and have no social security protection; health and sanitation workers - chemical sellers, drugstore operators, funeral undertakers, night soil carriers, refuse collectors, traditional/herbal healers, attendants in private maternity homes, and traditional birth attendants; • Domestic workers, who are also predominantly women and have limited social protection and job security; repairers of watches, refrigeration equipment, radios, mechanical or electrical/electronic equipment, mostly young male workers and have either received some basic education or are drop-outs, but among whom are to be found skilled workers whose skills are largely acquired through years of apprenticeship; garages - auto mechanics, sprayers, welders, vulcanizers, auto electricians, many of whom received some basic formal education alongside many drop-outs, and acquired their skills through years of apprenticeship; • Graphic designers, mostly males, about two to six workers in each unit who acquired their skills through limited vocational training and apprenticeship; • Audio-visual workers - photographers, cinema/video operators, performers, musicians, film-makers - are skilled workers who have received basic formal education but limited formal vocational training and apprenticeship - who are mostly male but among whom the number of females is increasing; • Hairdressers and barbers/private security men who are aged workers with very low educational standards, ill-equipped, lack job security and opportunities for career advancement, and without any social security protection. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 39 (ii) Construction Construction workers – made up of masons, carpenters, steel benders, small-scale plumbers, house-wiring electricians, and carpenters who are mostly young males, and are mostly school drop-outs. Electricians often have some basic training, while all the other groups go through years of apprenticeship. (iii) Manufacturing In this sub-sector of the informal sector, the predominant activities cover food processing, textile and garments, wood processing and metal works. Women dominate food processing while men constitute a clear majority in metal works and wood processing. (iv) Apprenticeship This is the most common form of skill acquisition and employment in urban informal manufacturing units. 3.5.5. Characteristics of Urban Informal Economy in Ghana The urban informal sector especially is associated with certain characteristics that have been grouped into four main categories according to the existing literature as highlighted by Ofori (2010) in his work on Taxation and the informal economy in Ghana. These include the following: i. Employment (characteristics of the people engaged in the informal sector); ii. Enterprise (characteristics of the activities in the informal sector); iii. Habitat (characteristics of the informal sector land and housing); and iv. Credit (characteristics of the informal credit markets) (Farrell et al., 2000). The above mentioned characteristics are examined as follows. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 40 3.5.6 Employment Characteristics of the People Engaged in the Informal Sector These characteristics are considered as follows: a) Absence of official protection and recognition The urban informal sector entrepreneurs do not enjoy protection from the state machinery in the form of legislations against any unscrupulous fraudsters who may defraud such entrepreneurs in the course of business dealings. Because the operators in the sector do not want to be identified for fear of being taxed, they avoid being recognized and hence do not enjoy the protection that may be available to them from the state (Farrell et al., 2000). b) Predominance of self-employment work There is no gainsaying the fact that operators in the informal sector are self- employed operating from their homes most often, with others using any available public space (popularly referred to as ‘no man’s land).With a table and a chair one could easily start up own business with family assistance (Ofori,2009). c) Non coverage by minimum wage legislation and social security Most, if not all, employed in the urban informal sector often get paid far below the national minimum wage and most urban informal sector employers fail to contribute to pension scheme on behalf of their employees. These employers escape appropriate sanctions as their illegal activities are hidden from the law enforcement agencies (Farrell et al., 2000). The employees also fail to report their employers either for fear of been ‘fired’ or out of gross ignorance of the law (Ofori, 2009). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 41 d) Absence of trade union organization Informal sector operators in the urban economy are individualistic in nature compared to their rural counterparts with a wide range of activities which make it extremely difficult for the formation of trade unions for the protection of the interest of the members. At any rate, formation of such trade unions may ‘expose’ the informal operators and risked being formalized (registering with an appropriate body) and subsequently pay tax for which reason some operate informally. e) Low income and wages The people employed in the informal sector are generally paid low salaries and wages due largely to the fact that there is excess labour supply and lack of skills that may attract higher wages. The entrepreneurs also get low return on their investment as a result of keen competition in that sector (Farrell et al., 2000). f) Little or no job security The employees in the informal sector could lose their jobs at any time at the whims and caprices of their employers. The employees cannot take any legal actions for any unfair dismissal as there is usually no binding contract of employment. No compensation is usually paid for such dismissal (Ofori, 2009). 3.5.7 The Enterprise Characteristics of the Activities in the Informal Sector The economic activities taking place within the informal economy exhibit certain unique characteristics which are considered below: a) Small scale operation with individual or family ownership According to Yankson (1992) the typical urban informal sector enterprise is individually-owned and operated, generally for less than five years duration. Often, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 42 the size is determined in terms of the number of employees including apprentices and family members engaged or capital invested. The average size of employment is four, though the number may vary with the nature and type of activity – from sole ownership to partnership and family ventures and cooperatives. b) Ease of entry The capital requirement for operating in that sector is rather very low and so anybody at all at any time may decide to set up business in the urban informal sector. There are also no regulatory requirements for entering into that sector. Yankson (1992) indicates that “capital intensity in this sector is low – most of the entrepreneurs use labour-intensive technology, with the largest units having the most fixed capital per employee”. c) Reliance on locally available resources Urban informal sector businesses are quite small in size and lack capacity to do offshore acquisition of resources- material, human and financial – for the running of the business. Hence the informal sector businesses tend to rely more, if not solely, on the local resources. The resources are acquired from various sources, sometimes new or second-hand or self-constructed but very rarely imported. So also for their raw materials, informal sector entrepreneurs depend largely on the local resources, primarily from the formal sector units in the cities (Barwa, 1995; Ofori, 2009). d) Family ownership Like the rural informal sector, family ownership dominates the ownership of the informal sector businesses in urban areas. This is largely due to the fact that family provides cheap source of labour for the business. The lack of trust on the part of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 43 individuals does not promote formation of partnerships and joint ventures in the informal economy. e) Labour intensive and adopted technology The level of technology, employed in the urban informal sector business units is low and in poor conditions (Ofori, 2009; Osarenkhoe (2009). The equipment used by informal sector entrepreneurs are self-crafted or bought locally with subsequent improvements made by the entrepreneurs. The informal sector displays ‘technological ingenuity’ by using locally made equipment. The operators lack adequate financial resources to import more advanced technology. The sector relies heavily on the labour for its production. 3.6 Study Population The population of the study is non-migrants. Non-migrants individuals, who were present at the time of the survey and who, if ever away from the household, came back more than five years ago and have not left the household since that time. 3.7 Sampling Technique and Sample Size The Kpando district of the Volta Region of Ghana was chosen purposively for this study because of its agrarian nature. Cluster sampling technique was used to collect data from the non-migrants. The clusters were be made up from the thirteen operational areas in the district and 20 non-migrants were selected from each operational area by convenience. The questionnaire was administered to 250 of households of non-migrants in the thirteen operational areas. The response rate was 88% meaning 220 were returned for data cleaning and processing. However, 18 out of the 220 questionnaires returned were invalid, leaving the researcher with 202 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 44 (81%) questionnaires for analysis. Data for this study were edited, coded and analyzed using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) and descriptive statistics. 3.8 Type and Sources of Data Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from primary and secondary data sources. Qualitative data was collected on age, sex, literacy level, marital status, household size, farming experience, extension contact, and etcetera through personal observations, using a well-structured questionnaire. Quantitative data was also collected on farm size (hectares), credit received (GH₵) and labour (man-days). The primary qualitative and quantitative data were collected from non-migrants in the district. The secondary sources are research offices of agriculture, MiDA statistical department, Ghana Statistical Service and published Agricultural journals, review papers and documents in order to check the reliability, conformity and consistency of the results obtained from the study. A pilot test was done to validate the suitability, reliability and appropriateness of the questionnaire as well as the expected responses by the respondents. The questionnaire was then reviewed to correct and supply the errors detected and omitted information from the survey respectively. 3.9 Statistical Analyses Frequency distributions of the 202 non-migrants capability to produce for consumption and for sale were examined for the entire sample by sex, age groups, educational level and household migration status. Chi-square tests were performed to assess significant differences across frequency of production by sex, age groups, educational level and household migration status. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 45 3.10 Summary This chapter outlines the description of the research design used for the study. The survey design was employed using the quantitative and inferential statistics. The population of the study was composed of non-migrant households. Data collected from the respondents were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 46 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.0 Introduction This chapter presents results and discussion of the several analyses carried out to address the stated objectives of the study which seeks to explore the demographic characteristics of rural households, the relationship between labour migration and food crop production, labour migration and remittances and rural livelihood. Table 4.1: Demographic characteristics of Non-migrants and Crop Production Characteristics of Non-migrant Category Producing Enough For Consumption and Sale Statistical Significance Yes No Sex Male 38 82 χ2= 0.42; df= 1; p = 0.5169; NS Female 22 60 Age < 36 10 29 χ2= 0.679; df= 2; p = 0.712; NS 36 – 60 37 88 >60 13 25 Marital Status Single 18 51 χ2= 0.42; df = 1; p = 0.516; NS Married 42 91 Education level No formal 6 32 χ2= 6.148; df = 4; p = 0.188; NS Primary 8 23 JHS 35 60 SHS/Technical/Vocational 6 16 Tertiary 5 11 Family Size < 6 41 91 χ2= 0.468; df= 2; p = 0.791; NS 6 – 10 18 47 >10 1 4 Farming Experience < 6 7 12 χ2= 0.706; df = 2; p = 0.703; NS 6 – 10 10 21 >10 43 109 Source: Survey data, 2013 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 47 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Non-migrant Farmers It is believed that the characteristics of non-migrant farmers in a way, may affect their production levels. Demographic features considered for this study included sex, age, marital status, educational level, family size and farming experience (table 1). 4.1.1 Sex The study shows no significant difference in the production levels of both male and female farmers, χ2 = 0.546, p = 0.281. In other words, sex does not determine the yield a farmer is likely to get. Majority of both the male and the female farmers’ said they not able to produce enough for consumption and sale. This means the effort of both male and female in their farming activity is similar, but other factors may be accounting for the low production levels reported. Most of the household heads are males and the discussions also reveal that most of the rural-urban migrants are mainly males. This affirms Ajearo et al. (2013), in their research reported that majority of the migrants were males. The major reason for their dominance is because there is more pressure on the males to succeed, therefore, they usually migrate earlier in life and when they have stabilized, they may come back to take their family members or to marry. Herrari and Sahn (2013) were also in agreement and reported that younger sisters are less likely to migrate since they assume expanded responsibilities for performing household chores when replacing older siblings who have previously migrated. 4.1.2 Age The age of farmers is essential because it is a general phenomenon that as one grows older, the energy used in working may lessen. The age category of less than 36 is usually considered the youth and it is expected that these individuals are vibrant and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 48 have much energy to farm. Ages from 36 to 60 is considered adult life and thus if one is still in active farming, then it is an important the adult wants to engage in. Above 60 years is mostly considered old and thus energy levels are low. Table 1 shows the adult age category of 36 to 60 who mostly do farming as their main income generating activity as having low production. Generally, there is no significant difference amongst the age categories and production levels of farmers, χ2 = 0.679, p = 0.712. This reveals that in the Kpando district, the age of the farmer is not a major determinant of the yields farmers attain. The implication of this finding is that the young migrants have the strength and risks bearing ability associated with such population movement. This statement is in accordance with UN (2013), that majority of the youth moving out of the rural areas to urban centres were between the ages of 12- 24 years where majority of them tend to engage more frequently in temporary forms of migration. It also revealed that the consequences of out-migration on the area include: absence of youths to assist parents in their profession, lack of work force to work on farms, and desertion of the area to the aged and children. 4.1.3 Marital Status Marital status is broadly categorized as either single or married. Single is an individual who has never been married or is no more with the partner whereas married is an individual who has a partner. The study shows that there is no significant difference in the production levels of married and single farmers, χ2 = 0.656, p = 0.516. This indicates that marital status does not influence production levels. This is contrary to the notion that there is extra support for the married as compared to the single but production levels are generally low. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 49 Most of the household heads are married, which could be attributed to the fact that those that were married may find it difficult to move without their household members. 4.1.4 Educational Level The results of the study indicate that there is no significant difference in the production levels of different educational levels, χ2 = 6.148, p = 0.188. The educational levels considered for the study included no formal education - respondents who have never sat in classroom of any school. Other levels included the JHS, SHS and tertiary. Educational level thus does not influence a farmer to produce enough for consumption and sale. From table 1 only few of the farmers have their educational level higher than JHS and that means a larger number of the farmers have low or no formal education. These numbers however do not significantly influence production levels. 4.1.5 Family Size Family size refers to the number of individuals in each family who help in farm activities and other household activities. Contrary to the believe that the higher the family size, the more farm hands likely to be available and thus higher production, the results of the study reveals that there is no significant difference in the production levels of farmers with different family sizes χ2 = 0.468, p = 0.791. This may be explained by the fact that such labour is unpaid and thus the workers may not attach all the seriousness needed. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 50 4.1.6 Farming Experience Farming experience refers to the number of years a farmer has been involved in the activity of farming. The expectation is that there is always improvement in the practices and thus the longer one has stayed in the farming business, better results should be attained or production should be enough to cater for consumption and sale. The results however prove that experience attained in farming does not significantly influence higher production for both consumption and sale χ2 = 0.706, p = 0.703. The reason for this could be that farmers are not getting any solutions to their farming problems and thus they keep making similar mistakes season by season and keep getting low yields. 4.2 Causes of Low Food Crop Production and Household Migration Status The findings showed that the following “push and pull” factors are responsible for low food crop production. The push factors include diseases, drought, high rainfall, flood, adverse climate, inadequate land and low seed quality. These factors determine the engagement in various income diversification strategies by the households in order to overcome poverty and food insecurity (Barrett et al., 2001). This further supports the household to accumulate income for farm expansion and non-farm business engagement among other motives (Dimova and Sen, 2010, Lay and Schuler, 2008). Morrissey (2008) affirmed that decision to migrate could be spontaneous. Some people may decide to migrate because their rural economy is disrupted. Such spontaneous decision could be as a result of natural catastrophe such as: flood, drought, landslide erosion earthquake, insect and pests’ infestation, escape from lack of human right and justice, political instability, infertile soil, lack of arable land for cultivation, communal clashes, family dispute, outbreak of war and other adversities. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 51 Todaro (1997) summed it up by saying: The factors influencing the decision to migrate are varied and complex. Emphasis has variously been placed, for example, on;  Social factor; including the desire of migrants to break away from traditional constraints of social organisations;  Physical factor; including climate and meteorological disasters like floods and droughts;  Demographic factor; including the reduction in mortality rate and the concomitant high rates of rural population growth;  Cultural factors; including the security of urban 'extended family' relationships and the allurements of the so-called 'bright city lights';  Communication factor; resulting from improved transportation,  Urban-orientation; educational systems and the 'modernizing' impact of the introduction of radio, television and the cinema. According to United Nations report (2005), half of the global population lives in cities and estimated that this will rise to sixty percent by 2030. The report also stated that urban population is projected to increase from 1.9 billion in 2000 to 3.9 billion in 2030 in many developing countries. This is as a result of the dichotomous planning and pattern of development many developing countries adopted especially after independence. This subsequently results in the rural being deprived and the urban endowed that is reflected in improved social amenities and economic opportunities in these urban centres than the rural areas. Labour availability is very critical in the agricultural activities in the study area. Therefore a higher proportion of the farmers indicate that impact of getting labour at University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 52 the right time impacts positively on agriculture. Angba (2003) indicates that the end result of rural-urban migration is indicated by increasing labour shortage. The implication of this situation is reduced agricultural productivity in the study area. Taylor et al, (2003) hold the view that loss in yield due to the reduction in available labour by out-migration may be compensated for partly by remittances from the migrants which are used to purchase additional inputs or hire labour substitutes for cropping. Ohajianya (2005) also concluded in his study of rural-urban migration and effects on agricultural labour supply in Imo State, Nigeria that farm operations have been affected highly by the absence of larger proportion of household members at their homes for agricultural labour supply. A great number of respondents have the perception that availability of agricultural labour is reduced. It can be concluded that out-migration has reduced labour availability in the community. The shortages in labour indicate increase time spent in farming, decreased farm incomes, low food crop productivity. Farmers in the Kpando District of the Volta region are unanimous in their mind that their food crop production is low and cannot cater for consumption and sale needs. The study thus sought to know the main causes of the low food crop production in relation to household migration statuses. Responses from in-depth interviews indicate that the migration in the district is mainly emigration to the big cities. The study categorized the migrant statuses of households as low, medium or high. The categorization is based on the fraction of migrants out of the total household size. Out of a total percentage score, low refers to households with less than 34% of household members migrating to other bigger cities. Medium migrant status refers to households with about 34 to 66% of household members emigrating whilst high migrant status refers to households with more than 66% of household members emigrating to other bigger cities. This categorization was done to ascertain how the problems influenced the migrant statuses. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 53 Table 4.2: Influence of Causes of Low Food Crop Production on Household Migration Status Low Production Causes Category Household Migrant Status Statistical Significance Low (<34%) (n=78) Medium (34 –66%) (n=70) High (>66%) (n=54) Disease Problems Disagree 9 2 4 χ2= 11.082; df = 4; p = 0.026; S Unsure 44 50 25 Agree 25 18 25 Drought Disagree 8 0 0 χ2= 15.501; df= 4; p = 0.004; S Unsure 59 58 20 Agree 11 12 18 High Rainfall Disagree 4 6 9 χ2= 13.396; df = 4; p = 0.009; S Unsure 30 35 12 Agree 44 29 33 Floods Disagree 4 5 7 χ2= 6.465; df = 4; p = 0.167; NS Unsure 32 38 21 Agree 42 27 26 Adverse Climate Disagree 5 4 3 χ2= 15.598; df = 4; p = 0.004; S Unsure 14 21 27 Agree 59 44 24 Soil Fertility Disagree 0 0 2 χ2= 7.770; df = 4; p = 0.100; NS Unsure 57 45 32 Agree 21 25 20 Soil Erosion Disagree 3 4 1 χ2= 2.469; df = 4; p = 0.650; NS Unsure 18 14 16 Agree 57 51 37 Inadequate Land Disagree 10 11 0 χ2= 13.775; df = 4; p = 0.008; S Unsure 48 38 28 Agree 20 21 26 Inadequate Labour Disagree 1 3 0 χ2= 3.977; df = 4; p = 0.409; NS Unsure 19 16 10 Agree 58 51 44 Inadequate Fertilizer Disagree 12 6 4 χ2= 8.980; df = 4; p = 0.062; NS Unsure 24 31 13 Agree 42 33 37 Low Seed Quality Disagree 17 15 0 χ2= 23.204; df = 4; p = 0.000; S Unsure 31 36 20 Agree 30 19 34 Low Knowledge Disagree 9 7 5 χ2= 2.149; df = 4; p = 0.708; NS Unsure 23 28 21 Agree 46 35 28 Source: Survey data, 2013 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 54 4.2.1 Disease Problems and Migration Status Some farmers in the Kpando district believed disease problems may be a major factor to low food crop production. There is a significant difference between the degree of disease problems and household migration status, χ2 = 11.082, p = 0.026. Few of the farmers disagree with the fact that disease problems cause low food crop production. Many of the farmers representing 59% respondents under the categories of low, medium and high migrant statuses are unsure about disease being a major issue. This may be due to the fact that they believe higher numbers of people are rather needed to help with farm work or other factors are responsible. However, about 34 % of the respondents across all the categories of migrant status agreed that disease is a major cause of low food crop production. 4.2.2 Drought and Migration Status From the table 2 above, with the households with low migration status, 10% disagree that drought is a cause of low food crop production in the district. Also, 76% are unsure whether persistence drought is a cause of low food crop production and 14% agreed that persistent drought is a cause of low food crop production. For households’ with medium migration status, 83% are unsure as to whether drought is a cause of low food crop production and 17% agreed drought leads to low food crop production. Seven percent (7%) of households with high migration status disagreed that drought is a cause of low food crop production, 59% high migration status households are unsure as to whether drought is a cause of low food crop production and 33% agreed that drought is a cause of low production. There is however a significant difference in the perceptions about drought and migrant status. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 55 4.2.3 Rainfall and Migration Status High rainfall has a tendency to destroy crops due to the intensity and force it comes with, together with the wind. Table 2 shows a significant difference in the perceptions of high rainfall and migration status χ2 = 13.396, p = 0.009. A good number of the farmers are unsure about rainfall being a major issue but majority agree that heavy rainfall is the cause of low food crop production. Out of this majority, 44 of them have low migrant status, 29 are from medium migrant status and 33 are high migrant status. This means few household individuals have migrated and thus they still have more labour but unable to produce to meet consumption and sale needs due to destruction by rains. 4.2.4 Floods and Migration Status Just like high rainfall, the floods either result from the rainfall or water spillage. Flooded farms have most of the crops swept away and thus low production from the few left. According to the study, there is no significant difference in the perception on floods and migrant status of the households, χ2 = 6.465, p = 0.167. This means that floods’ being a major issue is not very related to the level of household migrants. It is however important to note the low migrant status who agree that floods cause low production. A possible reason could be that despite the high labour investment in the farms, there is always lower production when the floods set in. 4.2.5 Adverse Climate and Migration Status Adverse climate or weather conditions are not very usual and comes once a while. This may include extremely high temperatures or very low temperatures, humidity or other conditions that are not favourable to the crops. The results of the study reveal a significant relationship in the perception of adverse climate and household migrant University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 56 status, χ2= 15.598, p = 0.004. A large number of the farmers agree to adverse conditions causing low crop production, but the number is highest for households with low migrant status. 4.2.6 Soil Fertility and Migration Status Soil fertility may be low in the soil if crop production has been continually done for many seasons. The study indicates a no significant difference in the soil fertility perceptions and migrant status χ2 = 7.770, p = 0.100. This means that there is no difference in the perceptions of soil fertility and household migrant status. Most of the farmers are however unsure of soil fertility being a main cause of low food crop production. 4.3 External Financial Support and Adequacy Lack of fund and access to credit facilities reduces incentives of farmers to increase productivity, even when there are opportunities for farm investment. Most of them source their capital inputs from personal savings, contribution and local borrowing from relations and co-operative societies. Also generally, farmers shy away from obtaining loans from commercial banks because of the problems of obtaining collateral. The illiteracy level is also high and this affects them negatively. Table 4.3: External Financial Support and Adequacy Variable Described Financial Value Total Adequate Inadequate Received External Financial Support Yes 0 13 13 No 0 138 138 Sometimes 2 49 51 Total 2 200 202 χ2 = 5.981; df= 2; p = 0.050 Significant Source: Survey data, 2013 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 57 The result of external financial support revealed that only 13(6%) of respondents receive external financial support for production and all of them confirm that what they receive is inadequate to support them for optimum production. Also 138(68%) respondents had never received external financial support. 51(25%) respondents said they sometimes receive external financial support and out of these, only two of them said the support is sometimes adequate while 49 respondents said what they got was inadequate. Though majority of the farmers who got the external financial support said it was inadequate for optimum production, the chi square (χ2) revealed that there is a significant difference between the respondents who received the external financial support and those who did not receive in their level of production at 5% level. This shows that if farmers get external financial support they can increase their production close to the optimum level. 4.4 Farming Processes and Production The outcome of farming is largely from the processes or practices that took place within the season. Many processes may cause a farmer to behave in one way or the other, despite the farmer desiring good yields. Some of these processes include how the farmer accessed the land, the sources of labour, land preparation method and support from extension officers. Table 4 presents the views of farmers on production compared to the farm processes / characteristics. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 58 Table 4.4: Farming Processes and Production Farm Characteristics Category Producing Enough For Consumption and Sale (N=202) Statistical Significance Yes No Access to Land Self 3 19 χ2= 3.322; df= 4; p = 0.505; NS Lease 15 36 Family 32 68 Community 6 12 Others 4 7 Sources of Labour Hired 10 39 χ2= 5.405; df = 4; p = 0.248; NS Family 27 45 Communal 4 9 Hired and Family 19 46 Other 0 3 Land Preparation Manually 60 131 χ2= 4.916; df = 1; p = 0.036; S Mechanized 0 11 Extension Officer’s Support 60 142 χ2= 1.562; df = 1; p = 0.233; NS Source: Survey data, 2013 4.4.1 Access to Land The results of the study reveal that there is no significant difference in the production of farmers who got their farms through their own effort, lease, family, community, and few other sources, χ2= 3.322, p = 0.505 (Table 4). Majority (100) of the respondent farmers obtained their farm land through family. Out of these, about 68 are still unable to produce enough for consumption and sale. One reason for the low production as reported by the farmers is that this category of farmers does not pay for the land and thus much effort is not invested to produce enough for consumption and sale. By this, it is expected that almost all the farmers who obtained their land by lease should be producing enough, but out of the total number of 51, only 15 of them meet their consumption and sale targets. This can also be that the lease agreements University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 59 are too short for long term investments to be made. Empirical evidence shows that more and more land is falling under de facto private control through formal sale and lease agreements and/or informal rental arrangements. Although some progress has been made in successful privatization of a few lands and settlements, the bulk of farmland in Africa is still under communal and traditional ownership. 4.4.2 Sources of Labour Farm labour remains one of the most vital aspects to farming in the Kpando district. This means once you have enough labour working on your farm, better results should be attained. The source of the labour however tells on the effort they put in the farm. Table 4 indicates that there is no significant difference between the production levels of farmers who get their labour by hired means, family, communal and both hired and family, χ2= 5.405, p = 0.248. It is clear that majority of the labour for the farm is from the family and hired combined. Out of 65 farmers, about 46 of the respondents are not producing enough for consumption and sale. The main issues, from in-depth interviews are that the hired labourers feel they are not paid enough and thus commitment to work is less. The family labourers also see themselves as unpaid labourers and thus also do not put in more effort. Other farmers who use only family labour complain of low household numbers and thus farm labour is inadequate. 4.4.3 Land Preparation Method The method of preparing one’s land for production can affect yields. Most literature recommends land preparation by mechanical method as it is proven to be more effective, but expensive. By mechanical means, the farmers prepare the land by the use of a tractor whilst the manual preparation involves the use of simple farm tools. Except for few farmers, majority of the respondent farmers in the Kpando district University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 60 prepare their land by manual means. The main reason for this is that the farmers view the mechanical preparation as expensive and so choose the manual way. The result shows a significant difference in the production levels of farmers using these two methods of land preparation, χ2= 0.057, p = 0.972. Majority report of low production and the method of land preparation could be a possible cause. 4.4.4 Extension Officers’ Support Extension service in Ghana is critical to the success of farmers due to the fact that most farmers rely on information to produce better. The result of the study indicates that there is no significant relationship between the production levels of farmers who receive support from extension agents and those who do not, χ2= 1.562, p = 0.233. About 99 of the total respondent farmers who receive no extension support also report of low yield (Table 4). This means the farmer may not be exposed to technology and modern ways of farming and thus the low production. From in-depth interviews, the farmers who receive some extension support are unhappy with the service because of its rarity. 4.5 Influence of Migration on Food Crop Production Result in table 5 showed the influence of migration on food crop production in the study area. About 21% (16 out of 78) of households with less than 34% migration rate said migration affected their food crop production. In households with 34-66% migration rate, 70% ( 29 out of 70), respondents indicated that migration affected food crop production while in households with more than 66%, about 28% (15 out of 54) respondents indicated migration affected their food crop production. This implied that migration has least influence (about 21%) on food crop production with University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 61 households that have less than 34% migration rate, but relatively high (70%) with households with migration rate of 34-66%. Table 4.5: Influence of Migration on Food Crop Production Producing Enough For Consumption and Sale Total Yes No Household Migrant Status Low (< 34%) 16 62 78 Medium (34-66%) 29 41 70 High (> 66%) 15 39 54 Total 60 142 202 χ2= 7.860; df= 2; p = 0.020; Significant Source: Survey data, 2013 The χ2 test of significance indicated that migration significantly influence food crop production at 5% level. The implication of this is that migration of people from food crop production areas affects food crop production negatively in the study area. 4.6 Influence of Migration on Livelihood of Non-Migrants A household is likely to send a migrant when the expected value of the migrant’s remittances exceeds his/her net contribution to the household welfare prior to migration. With perfect foresight, migration would always be welfare-enhancing: that is, a household would only send a migrant if the value of that migrant’s marginal product net of his or her consumption is less than the received remittances. However, because received remittances can vary greatly from expected remittances, the ex post impact of migration on welfare may be positive or negative. Lanjouw (2001) found out that rural farm household in El Salvador to be associated with acute poverty than their urban counterparts. According to Kwankye (2005), poverty and lack of employment opportunities are the main contributory factors for many young people moving from their rural communities to urban centres. Also Tidsskrift (2007) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 62 confirmed that farm households continue to find means to exit poverty and food insecurity concerns especially through non-farm income generating actives and cash crop production. Table 4.6: Influence of Migration on Livelihood of Non-Migrants Characteristics of Migrants Category Household Migrants Status Statistical Significance Low (<34%) (n=78) Medium (34–66%) (n=70) High (>66%) (n=54) In Contact with migrant Yes 76 61 48 χ2= 5.766; df = 2; p = 0.056; NS No 2 9 6 Migrant remit household Always 55 16 12 χ2= 45.735; df = 4; p = 0.000; S Sometimes 19 42 34 Not at all 4 12 8 Use of Remittance Food 6 4 5 χ2= 5.389; df = 4; p = 0.250; NS School fees 4 2 4 Farm 1 2 0 Food and School fees 67 62 45 Assistance to migrant Yes 44 43 30 χ2= 0.712; df = 2; p = 0.701 NS No 34 27 24 Type of assistance Food items 37 37 18 χ2= 9.084; df = 4; p = 0.059; NS Child care 6 4 10 Money 1 2 2 Positive social image due to migration Yes 73 52 45 χ2= 9.224; df = 2; p = 0.010; S No 5 18 9 Areas of improvement in livelihood Feeding and clothing 3 1 4 χ2=26.006; df = 10; p = 0.004; S School fees payment 0 1 6 Building 0 2 1 Afford luxury items 4 0 1 Feeding and fees payment 64 43 30 Respect in society 3 11 4 Social Status Increased 69 44 38 χ2=14.479; df= 4; p = 0.006; S Decreased 0 2 2 No change 9 24 14 Source: Survey data, 2013 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 63 4.6.1 Contact with Migrant The results revealed that households with less than 34% migration rate have about 97% (76 out of 78 households) rate of contact with the migrants and households with 34-66% migration rate have about 87% (61 out of 70 households) rate of contact with the migrants while households with more than 66% migration rate have about 89% (48 out of 54 households) rate of contact with the migrants. This indicates that the migrants are constantly in contact with the non-migrant households. However, the statistical test indicates that there is no significance between household migration status and migrants contact with the family. 4.6.2 Migrant Remittance to Household The result on remittances to non-migrant households showed that households with less than 34% migration rate received about 70% (55 out of 78 households), 24% (19 out of 78 households) and 5% (4 out of 78 households) remittances from the migrants always, sometimes and not at all respectively. Households with 34-66% migration rate received about 23% (16 out of 70 households), 60% (42 out of 70 households), and 17% (12 out of 70 households) remittances from the migrants always, sometimes and not at all respectively. Households with more than 66% migration rate also received about 22% (12 out of 54 households), 63% (34 out of 54 households), and 15% (8 out of 54 households) remittances from the migrants always, sometimes and not at all respectively. Households with low migration rate rather receive more remittances than those with medium and high migration rates. Chi square (χ2) statistical test of significance shows that significant difference exists between non-migrant households that received remittances and those that did not receive remittances. This implied non-migrant households that received remittances University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 64 have improvement in their livelihoods as compared to those that did not receive remittances. This is because when migrants do send remittances, they contribute to total household income. There is also a significant positive relationship between household welfare and the amount of remittances received. 4.6.3 Use of Remittances Majority of respondents (non-migrant households) said they spent greater portion of the remittances received from the migrants on purchasing food and payment of school fees while none or very little is spent on food crop production. 67 out of 78 respondents that fall under the category of low migration rate (<34%) spent their remittances on purchasing food and payment of school fees, 62 out of 70 respondents that fall under the category of medium migration rate (34-66%) used their remittances on purchasing food and payment of school fees and 45 out of 54 respondents that fall under the category of high migration rate (more than 66%) also spent their remittances on purchasing food and payment of school fees. The χ2 statistical test on remittances received from the migrants for improvement of lives of non-migrant households was not significant. 4.6.4 Assistance from Non-migrants to Migrants The study revealed that the non-migrant households provide some assistance to migrants. In the category of low migration rate (34%), about 56% of respondents said they give assistance to the migrant from their households while 44% of them give no assistance to the migrants. In the category of medium migration rate (34-66%), about 61% of respondents said they give assistance to the migrant from their households while 39% of them give no assistance to the migrants and in the category of more than 66% migration rate, about 56% of respondents said they give assistance to the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 65 migrant from their households while 44% of them give no assistance to the migrants. The assistance given to the migrants from all the three categories was mostly in the form of food items. The χ2 statistical test showed no significant difference between the non-migrant households who gave assistance to migrant and those who did not give any assistance the migrants. 4.6.5 Impact of Migrants on their Household Social Status Majority of the respondents said migration influenced their social image positively as 93%, 74% and 83% of the respondents from non-migrant households in three categories (low, medium and high migration rates) respectively agreed that migration influenced their social image positively. The χ2 statistical test showed that there was significant difference between households with migrants and households without migrants. 4.6.6 Influence of Remittances on Social Status The study revealed that remittances influenced social status of non-migrant households who received them. Sixty- nine (69) of 78 respondents in the low migration rate, 44 out of 70 respondents in medium migration rate and 38 out of 54 respondents in high migration rate categories said remittances increased their social status. The χ2 statistical test showed that there was significant influenced of remittances on social status of the non-migrant households who received them.The result indicates that migration (rural-urban) has often had an impact on the poverty status of individuals. With both urban-to-rural and rural-urban migration, sizeable proportions of migrants who would have been poor in the absence of migration were able to “escape poverty” in the sense that they are currently non-poor. It should be noted though, that some poor migrants would have been non poor if they had not University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 66 migrated. Regarding the impact of migration on aggregate poverty (and inequality), the evidence suggests there is little direct impact, although a more significant indirect impact (especially through remittance flows) is likely. On the whole, these results regarding the impact of migration on poverty are consistent with the findings of Litchfield and Waddington (2003). With regard to the impact of remittances on recipients’ welfare, there is evidence for a positive impact. Although rural-to-urban remittances had little welfare impact, rural recipients of urban remittances reaped sizeable proportionate welfare gains. The results also show that factors influencing remittance flows include employment income, the presence of an in-migrant, kin-fostering, the relationship between remitters and recipients. Additionally, there is support for the presence of both altruism and self-interest in remittance decisions. On the whole, the prevalence and importance of remittance flows have been underscored. Migration has an impact on welfare and poverty primarily through remittances. Remittances sent by migrants in the urban areas to the rural origin communities in raising the welfare of households sending migrants and narrowing the welfare gap between rural and urban communities. The impact of migration on welfare and poverty depends primarily on the likelihood, amount and frequency of remittances sent back to the household by the migrant. Although there may be other channels through which migration affects poverty — reduced population pressure, increase in the average skill levels in the origin communities if migrants enhance their human capital while away. Caldwell (1968) stated that the important determinants of the likelihood to migrate include presence of friends or relatives in the destination University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 67 locality. According to Tsegai (2005), incomes of migrant households are higher than those of otherwise comparable non migrant households in the Volta Basin. According to the ACPMD Report (2006), Remittances are one of the developmental effects of migration; and such effects are felt most distinctly at the individual or household level, but also at the community or national levels. It is widely acknowledged that remittances play a significant financial role in developing nations as they form part of income from services and contribute to the country‘s balance of payments. In Ghana, however, the relationship between migration and remittances is complex, as documented in the existing literature (Adams, Cuecuecha and Page, 2008). The New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) shows that the easing of the surplus and risk constraints is a crucial condition for the small farmer to carry out desired technological change. Therefore, migration and remittances could increase production output of the migrant household if they release the constraints that are limiting the expansion of their activity. 4.7 Summary The study addresses the following research questions from the perception of the non- migrants households in the study area. The research questions are as follows; i. How do the demographic characteristics of non-migrants and migrants influence food crop production in the Kpando District? ii. What is the impact of the causes of low food crop production on household migration status in the Kpando District? iii. How does migration affect food crop production in the Kpando District? iv. How does migration influence livelihoods in the Kpando District? Based on the perception of the respondent demographic characteristics of the rural households have no influence on food crop production and decision to migrate. The University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 68 results also indicated that most of the rural households are between the ages of 36 and 60 years. The findings also indicated that most of the households are male dominated and majority of the household heads are married. Also majority of the respondents agreed that rural-urban migration which has pulled a lot of their youths to the urban areas has made the youths unavailable to help carry out house chores and assist their parents in their trade and profession including lack of labour force to work on their farms therefore leading to low agricultural produce and low standard of living in the area. However other consequences include: gloomy village life, failure of youths to learn their culture and desertion of the village by the youths leaving behind mainly the aged and children. All these consequences can be upturned if the disparity in development between the urban and rural areas is substantially eliminated. This would make the youths sort what they go in search for in the urban areas, within the rural areas and therefore remain in there. The study also found that the “push-pull’ factors as well as the insurance against risk factors are all important as far as migration decisions are concerned in the study area. It can be inferred that the push factors are the strongest among all the factors responsible for migration in the area. The impact of the causes of low food crop production in the area is that the non-migrant households are not able to produce enough food crops for consumption and for sale leading to food insecurity and low farm income. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 69 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.0 Introduction This chapter presents the summary of the major findings of the study, conclusions drawn from the study with its implications and the recommendations made for policy and future research. 5.1 Summary The government has been investing in agricultural development since independence in 1957 which advocate for improvement in productivity through technological innovations yet most farmers remain food insecure. High food crop production is paramount to food security in the country. The study found out that migration and remittances showed statistical significant difference compared to the agricultural income and the decision to migrate is taken in order to make up the insufficiency of the agricultural income of the households through funds transfers. The results obtained from the study on the impact of migration on food crop production, come to validate all three theories stated – the “Push-Pull” Model of Migration, Todaro Model of Migration and the New Economics of Labour Migration. The survey identified that the high cost of foodstuff in the study area is due to decrease in food crop production in the farm rather than high profit margin in the market. Similarly, the foregoing has indicated that the constraints to increased food crop production in the rural areas can be quantified and scaled. The problems of high cost of human labour, high cost of transportation to the market and lack of funds and access to credit facilities ranked high in receding increased food productivity in the study area. Other significant identified constraints include lack of fertilizer and high yielding University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 70 seeds, high cost of crop damages resulting from poor storage facilities and poor sales of food stuff due to price fluctuation. All these reduce the incentives that can encourage local farmers to increase productivity. 5.2 Conclusion The study was designed to assess the causes of labour migration, low food crop production and remittance linkages on the livelihood of rural households in the Kpando District of the Volta Region of Ghana. Specifically the study seeks to: (i) describe the influence of demographic characteristics of non-migrants on food crop production, (ii) describe the causes of low food crop production, (iii) examine the effects of rural-urban migration on the production of food crops and, (iv) examine the impact migration on food security in the sending areas and describe the influence of migration on the status of non-migrants. The study sampled the views of a cross section of non-migrants on labour migration and remittances in relation to food crop production in Kpando district. The study attempted finding answers to research questions by using survey design and cluster sampling techniques to collect data from 202 respondents with the aid of structured questionnaire and personal interview. The results from the analyzed data show that the demographic features considered for this study namely, sex, age, marital status, educational level, family size and farming experience have no influence on non- migrants inability to produce enough crop food for sale and for consumption. However, factors such as disease outbreak, drought, intensive rainfall, inadequate land, poor quality seeds and lack of funds led to low food crop production. The results reveal that only 6% of the respondents received external financial support for University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 71 production and all of them confirmed that what they received is inadequate to support them for optimum production. Also 95% of the farmers prepare their land manually for farming activities. Also majority of the respondents agreed that rural-urban migration which has pulled a lot of their youths to the urban areas has made the youths unavailable to help carry out house chores and assist their parents in their trade and profession including lack of labour force to work on their farms therefore leading to low agricultural produce and low standard of living in the area. In addition, majority of the migrants remit to their households, but the monies are not used for agricultural purposes. The farm households spend greater portion of the remittances received from the migrants on purchasing food and payment of school fees. The rural youth relocated to urban centres to search for jobs not for better livelihood alone, but also to make remittance back home in rural areas to support family members financially in order to meet the cost of food and other necessities for the welfare and to improve the socio- economic status of the household. Migration can have positive effect on agriculture if remittances sent by migrants are invested in agriculture to offset the lost labour effect. This therefore suggests that rural-urban migration can have both positive and negative effects on agriculture depending on individual mindset. 5.3 Recommendations In conclusion a revisit to our agricultural policy should be done in favour of rural farmers in order to improve food productivity in areas. Attention should be increased in the areas of incentives to agricultural productivity affecting the small scale farmers. The government should focus on strategies that shall include: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 72 (i) undertaking policy reforms for the promotion of small and medium scale farming enterprises including promoting subsidies in the agricultural sector that will enhance improved accessibility to producing inputs and reduced cost of labour. (ii) facilitating improved transportation infrastructures, appropriate storage facilities and efficient marketing strategies to make food crop production attractive in our rural areas. (iii)improving farmers’ accessibility to the production and use of high yield, early maturing crop varieties requiring minimum agro-chemical input. (iv) agricultural mechanization programmes should be introduced in land-rich rural communities. (v) policy aimed at closing the lacuna between wage and other socio-economic differentials between the rural and urban areas, government’s support in the development and funding of small and medium scale rural enterprises, and agriculture. It is not overemphasize therefore, to say that a widespread agricultural development and improvement in Ghana should be our priority in the next five years to move the country forward to attaining the vision 2020 in the year 2020. This will curb inadequate productivity especially with the wide agricultural resource within the country’s rich borders. With the issue of emigration it is suggested that government and policy makers must articulate rural development strategies that can reduce the high rate outmigration from rural areas. Also efforts should be made to once more encourage young people in rural areas to go in to agriculture. Youth rural urban migration was found to have a direct bearing with the socio-economics of the migrants due to number of reasons. These included migration of the energetic group of the rural residents to urban University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 73 centres because of push factors like lack of job opportunities, social amenities and infrastructures in rural areas and also to make better livelihood more than that of their original place of residence. Migration to urban areas is more responsive to unemployment than migration to rural areas. The response of each migration flow to population at the origin is inelastic and migrants are more attracted to urban areas and to governorates that have large populations which generate extra employment openings than those in rural areas. It can be deduced that the movement of people from the rural area to urban area frees more land space for farming in the rural areas thereby enhancing access to communal land. Out-migration causes labour shortages. The implication of this situation is reduced agricultural productivity in the study area. Labour shortages lead to increased use of hired labour for the most on-farm operations such as land clearing, tilling the land, weeding among others. Rural-urban migration reduced agricultural labour in the district leading to low crop production therefore food insecurity in the area. Moreover, remittances from the migrants to the rural households are not invested into production to compensate for the lost labour. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 74 REFERENCES Adams, Jr., R.H. & J. Page (2005). The Impact of International Migration and Remittances on Poverty, Chapter 14 of Maimbo, S.M. and D. Ratha (eds.), Remittances: Development Impact and Future Prospects, pp. 277-306, Washington DC: The World Bank. Adepoju A. (2005). Patterns of Migration in West Africa in Takyiwaa Manuh (Ed) ―At Home in the World‖. Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers. Pp 24-55. Adepoju, A, Population, Poverty, Structural Adjustment Programmes and Quality of Life in Sub- Saharan Africa PHRDA Research Paper No. 1. Dakar: PHRDA. 1996. Adepoju, A. (2005). Review of Research Data on Trafficking in Sub-Saharan Africa‖, International Migration, 43:1 & 2. Ajaero CK, Onokala PC (2013). The Effects of Rural - Urban Migration on Rural Communities of South-eastern Nigeria. International Journal of Population Research, 2013. From (Retrieved on 3 March 2013). Ajearo CK, Madu IA, Mozie AT (2013). Appraisal of the factors of rural-urban migration in southeastern Nigeria. Innovare Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2): 1- 8 Anarfi, J., Kwankye, S., Ofosu-Mensah, A, & Tiemoko, R. (2001). Migration from and to Ghana: A Background Paper. Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty. University of Sussex, Brighton.Working Paper C4. Awumbila, M, Alhassan, O, Badasu, D.M, Antwi Bosiakoh, T, Dankyi K.E (2011). Centre for Migration Studies Technical Paper series Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Migration in Ghana, No. 3. Awumbila, M, and Ardayfio S.E., (2008). Gendered Poverty, Migration and Livelihood Strategies of Female Porters in Accra, Ghana. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 62 (3). Barwa, S. D. (1995). Structural Adjustment Programme and the Urban Informal Sector in Ghana, Issues in Development, Discussion Paper. Bhattacharya, P.C. (1993). Rural-Urban Migration in Economic Development, Journal of Economic Survey, Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. 243-281. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 75 Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analysing Peasant Variability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty, World Development, 27(12): 2021-44. Boakye-Yiadom, L. and McKay, A. (2008). Migration between Ghana’s Rural and Urban Areas: The Impact on Migrants’ Welfare. Department of Economics and International Development,University of Bath,UK. Braun van, J. (2004). Towards a renewed focus on rural development. Agriculture and Rural Development 11(2) 4-6. Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, T.F. (2001). A General Introduction to the Design of Questionnaires for Survey Research, Information Systems Services, University of Leeds. Caldwell, J. C. (1968). Determinants of Rural-Urban Migration in Ghana. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography. Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinov, T., Neefjes, K., Wanmali, S., & Singh, N. (1999). Livelihoods Approaches Compared, London: Department For International Development (DFID). Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century‘, University of Sussex, Institute for Development Studies, DP 296, Brighton Chambers, R. (2004). Qualitative Approaches: Self-criticism and What Can Be Gained from Quantitative Approaches. Pages 28-34 in R. Kanbur, editor. Q- Squared: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Poverty Appraisal. Permanent Black, Delhi. Chambers, R. (2006). Vulnerability, Coping and Policy (Editorial Introduction), IDS Bulletin Vol. 37(4): 33-40. Chilimampunga, C. (2005). The Impact of Rural-Urban Migration on Household Food Security in Selected Villages in Chiradzulu and Mangochi Districts. Community Development Journal Conference on Insecurity and Development. Bonn. Codjoe, Gosway, Breisinger, C. & Diao, X. (2008). Local Impacts of a Global Crisis: Food Price Transmission and Poverty Impacts in Ghana. IFPRI Working Paper, 2008. Contrasting Patterns of Migration in Mali. The Journal of Development Studies. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 76 Deshingkar, P. (2009). Internal Migration, Poverty and Development in Asia: Including the Excluded, Issue, IDS Bulletin, Volume 37 Ellis, F. & Freeman, H. (2005). Conceptual Framework and Overview of Themes, in: Ellis, F. and .Freeman H. (eds), Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Polices, London and New York: Routledge: 3-15. Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc. Faist, T. (2000). The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford University Press. Falaris, E.M. (1987). A nested logit migration model with selectivity. International Economic Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 429-443. Funkhouser, E. (1995). Remittances from International Migration: A Comparison of El Salvador and Nicaragua, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 77, No.1, pp. 137-146. Ghana Statistical Service (2000). Ghana Living Standards Survey Round Four Ghana Statistical Service (2000). Migration Research Study in Ghana: 1995. Ghana Statistical Service (2005). Population Data Analysis Report; Socio-economic and Demographic Trends, 1, Accra, Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana Statistical Service (2007). Pattern and Trends of poverty in Ghana, 1991- 2006. GSS April, 2007. Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) (2008), Ghana Living Standards Survey – Report of the Fourth Round (GLSS 4), Accra, Ghana. Gyamfi, S. (2006). Food Security in Ghana: The Development and Diffusion of Appropriate Technologies [PowerPoint slides], Ghana Statistical Service Harris, J., & M. P. Todaro (1970). Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two Sector Analysis. American Economic Review, 60, pp.126-42. Herreri C, Sahn DE (2013). Determinants of Internal Migration among Senegalese Youth. Sponsored by CERDI- Centre d´etudes et de recharches sur le Development International, Documents No. 08, France. From http://www.cerdic.org/ed (Retrieved on 12th February 2014). Kanbur, R. (2004). Q-Squared? A Commentary on Qualitative and Quantitative Poverty Appraisal in: Kanbur, R. (ed), Q – Squared. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods of Poverty Appraisal, New Delhi: Permanent Black. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 77 Knudsen M. H & Tidsskrift, G. (2007). Making a living in the Cocoa Frontier, Western Ghana: Diversifying incomes in a cocoa economy. Danish Journal of Geography 107(2), 29-44. Konseiga, A. (2005). Household Migration Decisions as Survival Strategy: The Case of Burkina Faso. African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn and IZA Bonn Discussion Paper No. 1819 October 2005: IZA. Lanjouw, O.J and Lanjouw, P. (2001). The Rural Non-Farm sector: issues and evidence from developing countries. Agricultural Economics 26, 1-23. Lanjouw, P. & Feder, G. (2001). Rural Non-farm Activities and Rural Development: From Experience towards Strategy. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Lanjouw, P. (2001). Nonfarm Employment and Poverty in Rural El Savador. World Development Vol. 29. No.3, 529-547. Lankford, B. (2005). Irrigation, Livelihoods and River Basins, in: Ellis, F. and Freeman H. (eds), Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Polices, London and New York: Routledge: 274-93 Lee, E.S. (1966). A Theory of Migration, Demography, Vol.3, No.1, pp.47-57. Litchfield, J. & H. Waddington, H. (2003). Migration and Poverty in Ghana: Evidence from the Ghana Living Standards Survey. Sussex Migration Working Paper No. 10. Sussex Centre for Migration Research. Lucas, R.E. (2004). Life Earnings and Rural-Urban Migration. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 112, No. 1, Pt. 2. Lucas, R.E.B. (1997).Internal Migration in Developing Countries. In M.R. Rosenzweig and O. Stark (eds.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics, Vol. 1B. Maria, S. (2010). Migration and Development. Analele Universităţii “Constantin Brâncuşi” din TârguJiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 4/2010 Mini, S.E. (2000). The impact of Rural-Urban Migration on Rural Economy in Rural Village. www.geofileonline.com. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, (2011).Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures (2010).Statistics, Research and Information Directorate (SRID) Moriarty, P., Butterworth, J., van Koppen, B. & Soussan, J. (2004). Water, Poverty and Productive Uses of Water at the Household Level, in: P. Moriarty, J. Butterworth and B. van Koppen (eds), Beyond Domestic. Case Studies on University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 78 Poverty and Productive Uses of Water at the Household Level, the Netherlands: International Water and Sanitation Centre: 49-74. Muñiz-Solari, O., Li, W., and Schleicher, Y. (2010). Migration conceptual framework: Why do people move to work in another place or country? In Solem, M., Klein, P., Muñiz-Solari, O., and Ray, W., eds., AAG Center for Global Geography Education. Available from http://globalgeography.aag.org. Date accessed 30/06/2013. Ohajiannya, D. O. (2005). Rural-urban migration and effects on agricultural labour supply in Imo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Agriculture and Rural Development, 2005, 6: 111-118. Osarenkhoe, A. (2009). Oxymoron of informal sector: a framework for conceptualizing informal sector as enabler of economic development in developing countries. Journal of International Business and Economics. Issue 1: Volume: 9 Jan, 2009 Ravenstein, E.G. (1885). The Laws of Migration. In Boakye-Yiadom, L. and McKay, A. (2006). Migration between Ghana’s Rural and Urban Areas: The Impact on Migrants’ Welfare. Department of Economics and International Development, University of Bath, UK. Schwarze, S. and Zeller M. (2005).Income Diversification of Rural Households in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44.61-73. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. A Framework for Analysis. Working Paper, No. 72, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex. Sridhar, K.S.,A., Reddy,V.A, Srinath, P. (2010). Is it Push or Pull? Recent Evidence from Migration in India. Paper submitted on 10th Round Regional Research Competition of South Asia Network of Economic Research Institutes. No. 10 – 04. Stark, O, & Levhari, D. (1982). On Migration and Risk in LDCs. Economic Development and Cultural Change: 191-6 Taylor, J.E., Rozelle, S. and De Brauw, A., (2003). Migration and incomes in source communities: a new economics of migration perspective from China. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 52 (1), 75-101. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 79 Todaro, M.P. (1969). A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries. American Economic Review. 69: 486-499. Tsegai, D. (2005). Migration and Household Income Differentials. Paper Presented at the 11th EADI General Conference on Insecurity and Development, Bonn, 21-24 September, 2005. UN (2003). The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements. United Nations UN (2005).World Urbanization Prospects. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. The 2005 Revision. United Nations New York, 2006 UN (2013). Factors associated with the youths rural-urban migration drift in Kwara State, Nigeria. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 1(8): 69-77. World Bank (2008).World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, Washington DC: The World Bank. Yankson, P.W.K (1989), Formation of Enterprises in the Urban Informal Sector in Ghana, Journal of Management Studies, University of Ghana. 1991, Vol. 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 80 APPENDICES APPENDIX I: Questionnaire UNIVERSITY OF GHANA This questionnaire is designed is to solicit information to undertake an academic research on the topic: Effects of Migration on the Livelihood of Rural Households in the Kpando District of the Volta Region. I therefore seek your consent and cooperation to participate in the study. Your participation is important, but voluntary. As one of the respondents your contribution will be significant in drawing conclusion for the study. It is however assured that, information generated from these questionnaires will be handled with utmost confidentiality. The questionnaire is to be answered by households that people migrated from. Client identification number:  Community:  Name of interviewer:  Date of interview:  SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Sex: 01=Male ( ) 02= Female ( ) 2. Age: …………………………………………………………………………………………. . 3. Educational Level:01= No Education ( ) 02=Primary ( ) 03=JHS/Middle ( ) 04=Technical/Vocational ( ) 05=SSSCE/WASSSCE/GCE ‘O’LEVEL ( ) 06=Post-Secondary ( ) 07=Tertiary ( ) 4. Marital Status: 01=Single ( ) 02=Married ( ) 03=Divorced ( ) 04=Widowed ( ) 5. Family size:01=Adult ( ) 02=Children ( ) 6. How long (in years) have you been in the district?………………years SECTION B: FARMING INFORAMTION 1. How long (in years) have you been farming? …………………...years University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 81 2. What farming system do you practice? Tick as many as applied by indicating the following. Crops Grown Tick( ) Farm Size(acres) Yield (in tons) Animals Tick( ) Number of Animals Maize Goat Cassava Sheep Yam Cattle Garden Egg Fowls Tomato Pig Pepper Rabbit Beans Turkey Onion Duck 3. What staple crops does your family consume? Indicate in rank order of most used Rank Crop Uses Yield (acres) Quantity for Feeding Duration for Feeding (Months) Quantity For Sale Food Cash 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4. Do you receive external financial support? 01=Yes ( ) 02=Never ( ) 03=Sometimes ( ) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 82 5. If yes, what is the value? 01=Adequate ( ) 02= Inadequate ( ) 6. What are your sources of credit? State all that apply Source Purpose Frequency of borrowing Family members Friends Money lenders Banks Cooperative Societies Other (Specify e.g. NGO’s, FBO’s) 1. …………… 2. …................ 3. …………… ……………………………………… …...………………...………………… ………...…………………………..… …………………...…………………. …………. …………………………... ……………………………. ..………………………….. .…………………………… ……... SECTION C: CAUSES OF LOW FOOD CROP PRODUCTION This part consists of questions concerning causes of low food crop production in the Kpando District. You are required to rank your level of agreement by choosing from the six alternatives below the one number for each question that comes closest to reflecting your opinion about it. 1=Disagree very much, 2=Disagree slightly, 3=Undecided, 4=Agree slightly, 5=Agree very much. Please tick ( ) the column of the response that most applies to you in the space against each item. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 83 Causes Low Agricultural Productivity 1 2 3 4 5 1. Droughts cause low food crop production 2. High rainfall cause low food crop production 3. Floods cause low food crop production 4. Adverse climate changes cause low food crop production 5. High deforestation cause low food crop production 6. Poor soil fertilities cause low food crop production 7. Soil erosion cause low food crop production 8. Destruction by predators cause low food crop production 9. Inadequate land cause low food crop production 10. Inadequate labour cause low food crop production 11. Inadequate fertilizers cause low food crop production 12. Inadequate subsidies cause low food crop production 13. Low seeds quality cause low food crop production 14. Poor Breeds of Animals cause low food crop production 15. Lack of basic infrastructure and resources cause low food crop production 16. Poor knowledge of modern agricultural practices cause low food crop production 17. Diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases cause low food crop production 7. Do you receive technical support from agricultural extension officers? 01=YES ( ) 02=NO ( ) 8. If yes, how often? ...……......…………………………………………………………............ 9. To what extent has extension services benefitted your farming business? ……………………………………..………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ……….. 10. How do you access your land? University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 84 01=Self ( ) 02=Lease ( ) 03=Family ( ) 04=Community ( ) 05=Other (state) …………………………………………………………………………… 11. Do you think you have acquired enough parcel of land for farming? 01= YES ( ) 02= NO ( ) 12. How do you prepare your land? 01=Manually ( ) 02= Mechanization ( ) 03=Other……………………………….………. Sex Number Age (year) Occupation in the village Skill of Migrant Migrated to Region Outside the Country Employment Male Adult Children Female Adult Children Total University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 85 SECTION D: EFFECTS OF MIGRATION ON CROP PRODUCTION 1. What are your sources of labour? Allow multiple answer 01= Hire labour ( ) 02= Family labour ( ) 03= Communal labour ( ) 04=Other (Specify) ………...…………………………………………………………...…. 2. Do you still have food stocks remaining from last year's planting season? 01=YES ( ) 02=NO ( ) 3. If yes, how many more weeks do you expect the stocks to last? Indicate:…… weeks 4. If no, in what month did the stocks run out? …………………………………………………. 5. Are you able to produce enough food to feed your family? 01= YES ( ) 02= NO ( ) 03= Sometimes ( ) 6. Are you able to produce enough for sale? 01= YES ( ) 02= NO ( ) 03= Sometimes ( ) SECTION E: MIGRATION INFORMATION OF MIGRANTS 1. How many people migrated from your household into the town/city? 2. What do you think made him/her to migrate? 01= Food insecurity ( ) 02=Population pressure ( ) 03=Lack of land ( ) 04=Unemployment in rural areas ( ) 05= Educational opportunities ( ) 06=Other (Specify) ……………………………………..………….....…………… 3. Does the migrant maintain contact with members of the household? 01=Yes ( ) 02= No ( ) SECTION F: INCOME AND REMITTANCES OF HOUSEHOLDS 1. Does the migrant remit to the household? 01=Always ( ) 02=Not at all ( ) 03=Sometimes ( ) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 86 2. If yes, how often does the migrant remit the household? ( if no, skip to Q3) AMOUNT (IN GHs) FREQUENCY (IN MONTH(S)) ANNUAL REMITTANCE GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs GHs 3. What are the major things you spend the remittances on?(Allow multiple answers) 01=Consumption items such as food ( ) 02=Clothing ( ) 03=School fees for children ( ) 04=Health or medical care needs ( ) 05=Investment in agriculture ( ) 06=Other (state) I. …...………….…………………………………………………………….. II. …………………………………………………………………………….. 4. Does the household provide any resources or assistance to the migrant? 01=Yes ( ) 02=No ( ) 5. If yes, what resources does the household provide to the migrant? 01=Foodstuffs from the farm or market ( ) 02=Prepared food items ( ) 03=Childcare ( ) 04=Money for transportation (return journey) ( ) SECTION F: PERCEPTION OF NON-MIGRANTS ON MIGRATION 1. Do you think migration has improved the economic status of the family? 01=Yes ( ) 02=No ( ) 2. If yes, please explain. Tick as many as possible. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 87 01=Family is able to meet their basic needs such as adequate food and clothing ( ) 02=Family can pay for health care services ( ) 03=Family can pay for school fees of children ( ) 04=Family upgraded their house ( ) 05=Family can afford a few luxury items ( ) 06=other (Specify)…………………………………………………………………………. 3. Has migration enabled your household to achieve some things that they would otherwise not have achieved? Please describe: ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………… 4. Do you think migration has increased or decreased the social status people accord your household in the village? 01=Increased status ( ) 02=Decreased status ( ) 03=No change in status ( ) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 88 APPENDIX II: Chi Square Analysis Tables Appendix IIa: Demographic characteristics of Non-migrants and Crop Production Characteristics of Non-migrant Category Producing Enough For Consumption and Sale Statistical Significance Yes No Gender Male 38 82 χ2= 0.546; df = 1; p = 0.281; NS Female 22 60 Age < 36 10 29 χ2= 0.679; df = 2; p = 0.712; NS 36 – 60 37 88 >60 13 25 Marital Status Single 18 51 χ2= 0.656; df = 1; p = 0.516; NS Married 42 91 Educational level No formal 6 32 χ2=6.148; df = 4; p = 0.188; NS Primary 8 23 JHS 35 60 SHS/Technical/Vocational 6 16 Tertiary 5 11 Family Size < 6 41 91 χ2= 0.468; df = 2; p = 0.791; NS 6 – 10 18 47 >10 1 4 Farming Experience < 6 7 12 χ2= 0.706; df = 2; p = 0.703; NS 6 – 10 10 21 >10 43 109 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 89 Appendix IIb: Influence of Causes of Low Food Crop Production on Household Migration Status Low Production Causes Category Household Migrant Status Statistical Significance Low (<34%) (n=78) Medium (34 – 66%) (n=70) High (>66%) (n=54) Disease Problems Disagree 9 2 4 χ2= 11.082; df = 4; p = 0.026; S Unsure 44 50 25 Agree 25 18 25 Drought Disagree 8 0 0 χ2= 15.501; df= 4; p = 0.004; S Unsure 59 58 20 Agree 11 12 18 High Rainfall Disagree 4 6 9 χ2= 13.396; df = 4; p = 0.009; S Unsure 30 35 12 Agree 44 29 33 Floods Disagree 4 5 7 χ2= 6.465; df = 4; p = 0.167; NS Unsure 32 38 21 Agree 42 27 26 Adverse Climate Disagree 5 4 3 χ2= 15.598; df = 4; p = 0.004; S Unsure 14 21 27 Agree 59 44 24 Soil Fertility Disagree 0 0 2 χ2= 7.770; df = 4; p = 0.100; NS Unsure 57 45 32 Agree 21 25 20 Soil Erosion Disagree 3 4 1 χ2= 2.469; df = 4; p = 0.650; NS Unsure 18 14 16 Agree 57 51 37 Inadequate Land Disagree 10 11 0 χ2= 13.775; df = 4; p = 0.008; S Unsure 48 38 28 Agree 20 21 26 Inadequate Labour Disagree 1 3 0 χ2= 3.977; df = 4; p = 0.409; NS Unsure 19 16 10 Agree 58 51 44 Inadequate Fertilizer Disagree 12 6 4 χ2= 8.980; df = 4; p = 0.062; NS Unsure 24 31 13 Agree 42 33 37 Low Seed Quality Disagree 17 15 0 χ2= 23.204; df = 4; p = 0.000; S Unsure 31 36 20 Agree 30 19 34 Low Knowledge Disagree 9 7 5 χ2= 2.149; df = 4; p = 0.708; NS Unsure 23 28 21 Agree 46 35 28 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 90 Appendix IIc: External Financial Support and Adequacy Variable Described Financial Value Total Adequate Inadequate Received External Financial Support Yes 0 13 13 No 0 138 138 Sometimes 2 49 51 Total 2 200 202 χ2= 5.981; df= 2; p = 0.050 Significant Appendix IId: Farming Processes and Production Farm Characteristics Category Producing Enough For Consumption and Sale (N=202) Statistical Significance Yes No Access to Land Self 3 19 χ2= 3.322; df= 4; p = 0.505; NS Lease 15 36 Family 32 68 Community 6 12 Others 4 7 Sources of Labour Hired 10 39 χ2= 5.405; df = 4; p = 0.248; NS Family 27 45 Communal 4 9 Hired and Family 19 46 Other 0 3 Land Preparation Manually 60 131 χ2= 4.916; df = 1; p = 0.036; S Mechanized 0 11 Extension Officer’s Support Yes 13 43 χ2= 1.562; df = 1; p = 0.233; NS No 47 99 Appendix IIe: Influence of Migration on Food Crop Production Producing Enough For Consumption and Sale Total Yes No Household Migrant Status Low (< 34%) 16 62 78 Medium (34-66%) 29 41 70 High (> 66%) 15 39 54 Total 60 142 202 χ2= 7.860; df= 2; p = 0.020; Significant University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 91 Appendix IIf: Influence of Migration on Livelihood of Non-Migrants Characteristic of migrant Category Household Migrants Status Statistical Significance Low (< 34%) (n=78) Medium (34–66%) (n=70) High (> 66%) (n=54) In Contact with migrant Yes 76 61 48 χ2= 5.766; df = 2; p = 0.056; NS No 2 9 6 Migrant remit household Always 55 16 12 χ2= 45.735; df = 4; p = 0.000; S Sometimes 19 42 34 Not at all 4 12 8 Use of remittance Food 6 4 5 χ2= 5.389; df = 4; p = 0.250; NS School fees 4 2 4 Farm 1 2 0 Food and School fees 67 62 45 Assistance to migrant Yes 44 43 30 χ2= 0.712; df = 2; p = 0.701 NS No 34 27 24 Type of assistance Food items 37 37 18 χ2= 9.084; df = 4; p = 0.059; NS Child care 6 4 10 Money 1 2 2 Positive social image due to migration Yes 73 52 45 χ2= 9.224; df = 2; p = 0.010; S No 5 18 9 Areas of improvement in livelihood Feeding and clothing 3 1 4 χ2= 26.006; df = 10; p = 0.004; S School fees payment 0 1 6 Building 0 2 1 Afford luxury items 4 0 1 Feeding and fees payment 64 43 30 Respect in society 3 11 4 Social Status Increased 69 44 38 χ2= 14.479; df = 4; p = 0.006; S Decreased 0 2 2 No change 9 24 14 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh