ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR
CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK
YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE
PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL
INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS
PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
EFFECT OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCION
1.1 Background of the
study
Unlike mortality and fertility, internal migration does not
affect the entire population size of a country. But it has a very important
role in redistributing the population size between rural and urban areas and
between rural areas of low potential and those of higher agricultural
potential. One of the most noteworthy demographic phenomena faced by many
developing countries in the world is the shortage of skilled labour and food
security, and conversely the rapid population growth in the urban centres,
which is largely caused by the prevalence of rural-urban migration (Agesa &
Kim, 2001). According to Justina (2007), migration is a wide spread phenomenon,
that any study made on an urban centre in Sub- Saharan Africa (SSA) of which
Ghana is part, will ever, deal largely with a population that was not born in
the place. Bahns (2005) contends that about half of the population in the world
lives in cities and urban areas and the population are hypothesized to be
around 1 million every year. Most of these have migrated from other parts of
the country particularly from the rural areas. The rate of current urban
population growth has reached up to 6% in many African countries including
Ghana (Accra), Nigeria (Lagos), and Kenya (Nairobi), (Dao, 2002). Migratory
movements have multiplied greatly in recent years, because of improved
transport, communications, and expansion in urban informal sector employment in
most SSA countries (Chant & Radcliff, 1992).
Migration is particularly important in Ghana because of long
tradition of population mobility and particularly high rates of rural–urban
migration. Caldwell (1969) argued in his study of migration that moving from
rural areas to towns has been an important part of farm household livelihood
strategy for decades. He observed that to many Ghanaians, urban life represents
new employment opportunities, the possibility of working indoors, modernity and
being less tied to family duties, which is different from working mainly on
farms, coupled with enormous family responsibilities. Northern Ghana has long
been characterized by outmigration. Rural households in these communities send
out internal migrants for prolonged periods, primarily to the large urban
centres in the south (Wouterse, 2010). Recently a new dominant north-south
migration stream has emerged involving that of females moving independently of
their families to urban centres such as Accra and Kumasi (Awumbila and
Ardayfio-Schandorf, 2008).
In SSA, most social roles and
status (attributed to gender and
age, opportunities and constraints such as access to resources and the
opportunity to migrate) are socially embedded. Internal migration is attracting
increasing attention among researchers, academics, development practitioners,
and policy makers, many of whom attribute the growth of rural–urban migration
in particular to increasing unemployment and rural poverty in developing
countries (Anarfi et al., 2001; Chant, 2002; Zhao, 2003). Afshar (2003)
contended that, the inadequacy of incomes, lack of gainful employment, coupled
with poverty in the rural areas, have pushed people out of their villages in
search of better sources of livelihoods in the urban areas. According to
Bryceson et al. (2000), most of these migrants do not possess relevant skills
or education that would enable them secure employment in the formal sector in
urban places.
The consensus in the literature about the relationship
between migration and agricultural development remains thin. A study conducted
by Aworemi, Abdul-Azeez & Opoola (2011) in Nigeria shows that rural-urban
migration is a double-edged problem affecting the rural community as well as
the urban destinations. They content that rural community is affected because
the youths and adults that are supposed to remain in the community and contribute
to the development of agriculture in particular and the community in general
leave the rural areas for other destinations. The ‘lost labour’ of able-bodied
(migrated) men and women is ascribed a key role in the process of agricultural
decline. Interestingly, internal migration is associated with rural and
agricultural stagnation or even decline (Regmi and Tisdell, 2002). This has
serious implications for agricultural production since most of the work which
would have been done by the youths is now left for the aged to do (Angba,
2003). De Haan (1999) suggests that migration does not usually lead to radical
transformation of rural agriculture but that it often occupies a central part
in the maintenance of rural people’s livelihoods.
While migrants are away, households have less labour to
allocate to local production activities. If a migrant household’s marginal
product on the farm is positive, crop production will fall when the household
sends out a migrant(s). Taylor et al. (2003) noted that the adverse effect of
loss of labour may be high since migrants tend to be younger and better
educated than the average rural labourer. Rozelle et al. (1999) report a
significant and negative effect of loss of labour on yields. Also, De Brauw and
Rozelle (2003) found that the loss of household labour from migration
negatively affects household crop income.
In spite of the fact that out-migration results in loss of
agricultural labour which subsequently affects productivity and level of farm income,
some scholars have argued that out-migration has positive effects on
agriculture. For instance, (Taylor et al., 2003) have argued that loss in yield
due to the reduction in available labour may be compensated for (partially) by
remittances from the migrant(s), which are used to purchase additional inputs
or rent substitutes for labour in cropping. It is possible that, initially the
migrants cannot send remittances until they are well settled. However, De Haas
(2001) contended that, in the long run, and after an adjustment process, this
agricultural decline has often been reversed through agricultural investments
made possible by the inflow of remittances. De Brauw and Rozelle (2003) also
provide evidence that the remittances sent home by migrants partially
compensate for this lost-labour effect, contributing to household incomes
directly and also indirectly by stimulating crop production. IFAD (2007)
hypothesized that migration is likely to generate a positive income effect on
the sending households, raising the household’s ability to access important
nutritional inputs like food among others. Furthermore, Fasoranti (2009) in his
study on perceptions of rural-urban migration in selected rural communities in
Ondo State, Nigeria found that over 80% of the respondent agreed or strongly
agreed that the movement of a member of the family to an urban location frees
more land space for farming in the rural areas. This eventually may lead to
increased cultivation and subsequently increased productivity.
In a nut shell, this apparent contradiction in the literature
can be partly resolved by the understanding that migration impacts are not the
same for different areas across time and space. There are indications that the
initial effect of migration on agricultural productivity might indeed have been
negative, because of an acute lack of family labour but may subsequently
improve if remittances flow from migrants and are invested in agriculture.
After reviewing a number of cases in Asia, Deshingkar (2004) concluded that, a
loss of labour through migration may or may not reduce agricultural production,
remittance may or
may not increase access to assets by alleviating credit
constraint: this in turn may or may not increase agricultural production and
household incomes.
1.2 Statement of the problem
The conflict situation has left the study area deprived of
basic social amenities and services together with infrastructure that would
make a place attractive to live in. This gives a disincentive for people to be
attracted to the area. There are few or no other opportunities for livelihood
activities apart from farming and a few formal sector employments. The mass
migration of the labour force from agriculture and the declining soil fertility
together threaten agricultural sustainability in the study area. The
out-migration of the agricultural labour force has therefore affected
agricultural performance and productivity which subsequently brought about food
insecurity and low farm incomes.
Rural-urban migration has been a challenging issue for policy
makers and or governments especially in developing countries. The impact of
out-migration on rural livelihoods is a moot case. Out-migration may result in
drastic decrease in the labour which in turn reduces total cropped area and
quality of work giving rise to reduced food production and reduced household
wealth leading to increased vulnerability in many rural areas which may, brings
about food insecurity. The impact of rural-urban migration may result in the
speedy decline of the rural economy that leads to persistent poverty and food
insecurity (Mini, 2000). This arises owing to disproportionate exodus of the
youth from the rural areas leaving only aged members and children to constitute
the labour force.
1.3 Research questions
1. What are the
factors that influence out-migration in Nigeria into the urban areas?
2. What is the
relationship between out-migration and agricultural labour availability in
rural areas of Nigeria?
3. What is the
relationship between out-migration and agricultural land accessibility and
availability in Nigeria?
4. What is the
relationship between out-migration and agriculture performance in Nigeria?
1.4 Objectives of the study
1. To identify
community members perception of causes of out-migration.
2. To determine the
effects of out- migration on agricultural labour availability.
3. To examine the
effects of out- migration on accessibility of agricultural land.
4. To assess the
influence of out-migration on level of farm income.
5. To examine the
effect of out-migration on food availability (security).
1.5 Research questions
1. Out-migration-
refers to movement of people from the study area either temporally or
permanently to settle in other places.
2. Agricultural
labour availability- refers to the work force engaged in agriculture. This is
indicated by labour increase or reduction in the district.
3. Agricultural
land accessibility- refers to the means by which farmers in Nigeria acquire
land for farming. It is indicated by the system of land ownership.
4. Agricultural
land availability- refers to adequacy or inadequacy of arable land in the area
resulting from out-migration. It is indicated by land availability or
unavailability of arable land resulting from out-migration of household
members.
5. Agricultural
performance- refers to how well or otherwise agriculture is doing in the area.
This is indicated by increased time spent in carrying out a specific farm
activity, level of farm income and level of agricultural productivity.
6. Food
availability- refers to the physical presence of harvested food stuff all year
round. It is indicated by adequacy or shortage of food in the area.
7. Farm income-
refers to income realized by farmers from the sales of farm produce including animals.
1.6: Research hypothesis
H0: There is no relationship between rural urban migration
and agricultural production
H1: There is a relationship between rural urban migration and
agricultural production
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT
WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT
MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate
amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1)
Your project topics
(2)
Email Address
(3)
Payment Name
(4)
Teller Number
We
will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account
Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account
Number: 0046579864
Bank:
GTBank.
OR
Account
Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account
Number: 2023350498
Bank:
UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
https://projectmaterialsng.blogspot.com.ng/
https://foreasyprojectmaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://mypostumes.blogspot.com.ng/
https://myeasymaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://eazyprojectsmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/
https://easzprojectmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/
Comments
Post a Comment