ABSTRACT
This study examined the effects of
remittances on the livelihood of farm households in Enugu State Nigeria.
Multistage random sampling technique was used to select 120 remittance
recipient households used for the study. Data were collected by the use of
structured questionnaire. Both descriptive and inferential statistical
techniques were used in data analysis. The study showed that, households whose
heads are within, 51 – 70 year of age and are not highly educated are more
likely to produce migrants. Also families with large household size (six and
above) migrate more. Households with married status were found to be 65.8%,
while 56.7% of the household heads were males. Internal remittances formed the
bulk of the receipts of 86.7% of the respondents, while 55% of the respondents
received between N1, 000 and N10, 000 remittances 4-6 times a
year. The most frequent channel for remittance delivery was hand carriage and
both cash and non-cash remittances were received. Remittances received were
often used to meet pre
- existing household needs/expenses. Regression result showed that age of
household heads as well as their levels of education affected migration. Other
factors that affected migration are farm size and household size. The
livelihood of farm households was found to be affected by the number of
organizations the household heads belonged to, the age and the level of
education of household head, farm size and size of remittances that is
invested.
- existing household needs/expenses. Regression result showed that age of
household heads as well as their levels of education affected migration. Other
factors that affected migration are farm size and household size. The
livelihood of farm households was found to be affected by the number of
organizations the household heads belonged to, the age and the level of
education of household head, farm size and size of remittances that is
invested.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
With
an estimated population of 150 million people, Nigeria is the most populous
country in Africa. About two-thirds of the population resides in the rural area
where they derive livelihood from Agriculture and allied sectors (Oseni &
Winter, 2009). Although, agriculture has remained a rural enterprise, it
accounted for 41.21 per cent of the GDP and the largest non-oil export earner
to the country (National Planning Commission [NPC], 2006).
Agriculture
as practiced in Nigeria is predominantly of small farm household (comprising
the farmer and his family) which usually cultivates an area of land that ranges
from 1.5 to 2.0 hectares in fragmented and scattered small holdings. Although
these households are individually insignificant, they collectively form an important
foundation upon which the Nigerian agricultural economy rests. This category of
farmers are desirable not only because they provide employment and food for the
country’s teeming population (Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic
Research, 2003), but also because they provide a more equitable distribution of
income as well as effective demand structure for other sectors of the economy
(Dorner, 1995; Bravo-Ureta & Evenson, 1994).
According
to Ashley & Carney, (1999); Chambers & Conway (1992) agricultural
production is not the only source of livelihood available for the rural people,
farm households constantly adjust their on-farm and off-farm activities (e.g.
local craftwork, trade, civil service, hunting for game, brick laying, local
services such as traditional healing and repairs) in response to some changes
in their environment. The characteristics of livelihood components are
determined by the resources and values of specific physical, social and
environmental assets. Thus, livelihood can be described as consisting of
systematic activities or enterprises undertaken by individual households using
their capabilities as well as assets to derive material or financial reward and
improved status (Assan, 2006). However, the effort by households to improve
their well being through engaging in various livelihood options tend to be
distressed by environmental factors, unemployment and poverty which dominate
the livelihood patterns of farm households (Barrett et al, 2001; Ellis 1998).
Livelihood
of the farm households is bedeviled by missing market, lack of fundamental assets,
production services and inputs (such as land, water, credit, extension, market
information and technical innovation), high unemployment rate, recurring crop
failures, precarious labour conditions and low salaries (International Fund for
Agricultural Development, (IFAD) 2007; World Bank, 2007). Nwaru (2004) noted
that inappropriate policies and programme for Agriculture, pervasive corruption
manifesting in misappropriation of resources and embezzlement, ethnic and
religious conflicts has resulted to a high sense of insecurity and inefficiency
in production.
Owing
to the inability of government to meet the needs and interests of the farmers,
rural sector within this context, offer inadequate and limited options to
satisfy the needs of the rural farm households and provide them with little
opportunities to improve their lives (IFAD and FAO, 2008). To guarantee
survival, migration as a supplementary source of livelihood and household
diversification strategies has assumed importance (FAO, 2007; Samal, 2006).
Migration
– (whether Domestic or international) is generally a household decision and a
strategy to diversify income, minimize risk, cope with economic crisis and
improve livelihood and welfare (Kiiru, 2010; Assan, 2006; Pott, 2006; Samal,
2006; Young, 2006). Evidence has shown that, although the poor have higher
migration propensities, the poorest people cannot afford the material cost and
risks associated with international migration and are linked more to internal
migration (Hatton & Williamson, 2004; Waddington & Sabates-wheeler,
2003). IFAD and FAO (2008) noted that, though internal and international
migration have differing characteristics, the motive for displacement is
similar – the search for new options to improve the quality of life – and is thus
an indication of limited opportunities.
According
to Asa (2007) and Samal (2006) remittances are positive outcomes of migration
and are the portion of migrant workers’ earnings or available income sent to
their families back home (Khoudour-Casteras, 2007). Ratha (2003) stated that
private inward remittances are often affected by unanticipated economic shock
such as fuel price increase or elimination of agricultural subsidies which
leads to income shortfall. However, unlike internal remittances, international
remittances have proven surprisingly resilient in economic down turns....
================================================================
Item Type: Project Material | Attribute: 65 pages | Chapters: 1-5
Format: MS Word | Price: N3,000 | Delivery: Within 30Mins.
================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment