The Effect of Rural-Urban Migration on Agricultural Production in Nigeria
Chapter One
Main research objective
To examine the perceived causes and impact of rural-urban migration on agricultural productivity from the perception of the non-migrant farmers left behind in the Oyo LGA.
Objectives
- To identify community members’ perception of causes of out-
- To determine the effects of out-migration on agricultural labor
- To examine the effects of out-migration on the accessibility of agricultural
- To assess the influence of out-migration on the level of farm
- To examine the effect of out-migration on food availability (security).
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter starts by presenting some definitions and conceptualizations of terminologies. An exact understanding of these terminologies is important in explaining the relationship between migration and agricultural performance or productivity of rural people. The chapter also reviews literature on migration and how it affects agriculture. The literature reviewed mainly aims at getting some theoretical and empirical evidence of why households diversify their livelihood strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa especially through migration and an understanding of migration and how it affects agricultural production in Sub-Saharan Africa and the resultant consequences.
Conceptualization of key terminologies
This section defines and/or conceptualizes the key terminologies at the heart of the current study: rural areas; livelihood; factors affecting migration and impact of migration on agriculture. Getting together the different perspectives/conceptualizations is of importance particularly in explaining the success or failure to improve the well-being of the respondents.
What are rural areas?
Definition of rural areas varies depending on who is defining them and specific country situations. Its meaning differs significantly between developed countries, countries in transition, and those in the developing world. Nwanze (2000) defined rural areas as areas with population thresholds of between 5,000 and 10,000, who are primarily dependent on agriculture and/or natural resources for their livelihoods. This definition cannot be fully applied to the Nigeriaian situation since some people in some urban areas also solely depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. In Nigeria however, a population threshold of 5,000 is commonly used to classify settlements as urban. Those settlements with a population size less than 5,000 are designated rural (GSS, 2000).
Other definitions have included other qualitative and quantitative characteristics. For example, SARDF (1997) see rural areas as those with sparse populations who are dependent on natural resources, USDA (2005) describe them as areas comprising of open country and settlements with fewer than 2,500 residents; whereas compared to urban areas, rural areas are inhabited by people owning more ‘rural-specific ‘assets such as farmland, livestock, and irrigation per person than urban people (IFAD, 2001). The conditions of rural people can profoundly affect agricultural production and productivity, denying them opportunities to reduce their poverty or improve their living conditions.
The major descriptions shared by the definitions above comprise remoteness, low population densities and high dependence on agriculture and/or natural resources for livelihoods. Due to these characteristics people living in rural areas, particularly those in developing countries such as Nigeria, tend to own fewer assets.
What is livelihood?
To the lay man the term livelihood describes “making a living”. The term is well accepted as humans naturally develop and put into operation strategies to ensure their survival. A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base (Chambers & Conway, 1991).
Theoretical perspectives
A theoretical overview of migration
Although few scholars would deny the direct contribution of migration to the livelihoods and survival of families left behind, the extent to which migration and remittances can bring about sustained human development and economic growth in migrant-sending areas and countries is quite a different question (De Haas, 2007). This issue has been the subject of heated debate over the past four decades, and it is possible to distinguish four periods in the post–Second World War thinking on migration and development. While “developmentalist” optimism dominated in the 1950s and 1960s, large-scale pessimism prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s. This changed with the emergence of more nuanced views in the 1990s and the current rediscovery of remittances, and the simultaneous resurgence of optimism on migration and development in recent years (De Haas, 2007).
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter deals with description of the study area and the methodology used in the study. The areas dealt with in this chapter include description of the research design, location and description of the study area, study population, sampling techniques/sample size used, development of data collection instruments and methods used for data collection. The chapter also describes the administration of the questionnaires during the pre-test stage, final questionnaire development, data collection and precautions taken in the field during the data collection process.
The description of the research design
In order to achieve the set objectives of the study, a descriptive research design was used. Kerlinger (1986) defined a research design as a plan, structure and strategy of investigation so conceived as to collect data and obtain answers to research questions or problems (as cited in Lolig, 2005). Data obtained from descriptive research may be expressed qualitatively in verbal terms and quantitatively in mathematical terms. The quantitative method was used and this sought to establish the relationships between variables used in the study.
In line with the above, a cross-sectional research design (Creswell, 2003) was adopted, whereby data was collected at one point and time. In this type of research study, either the entire population or a subset thereof is selected, and from these individuals, data are collected to help answer research questions of interest. It is called cross-sectional because the information about the subjects collected represents what pertains one point in time (Chris and George, 2004). This study used the term cross-sectional study to refer to this particular research design and the term questionnaire to refer to the data collection form that was used to ask questions of research participants. The choice of this method was partly necessary by its ability to meet the objectives of the study, and due to constraints in terms of time and finance.
Population of the study
According to Bell, (2005) the population of a study refers to the entire group of individuals selected for the study. For this study the population comprised of farmers in the Oyo LGA. From the 2000 population census about 85% of the LGA population was engaged in agriculture. With all things being the same, 85% of the projected population which is 82,243 is considered to be in agriculture as well.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter presents the empirical results of the study. It explores the perceptions of respondents on the impact of migration at the community and household levels in ‘Overseas’ and ‘Mainland’ communities. First, it presents a description of the socio- economic background of respondents from both in the ‘Overseas’ and ‘Mainland’ areas. Secondly, it examines the impacts of out-migration on agricultural labour availability, land accessibility and availability, agricultural performance and productivity.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter deals with the summary, conclusions and recommendations drawn from the study.
Summary
The study was structured to measure the impact of rural-urban migration on agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods in ‘Overseas’ and ‘Mainland’ areas of the Oyo LGA from the perception of the non-migrant farmers left behind in the area. The specific research questions were as follows; what are the factors that influence out- migration in Oyo LGA into the urban areas? What is the relationship between out-migration and agricultural labour availability in rural areas of the Oyo LGA? What is the relationship between out-migration and agricultural land accessibility or availability in the Oyo LGA? What is the relationship between out- migration food availability and level of farm income in the Oyo LGA?
The research design that was adopted for the study was largely quantitative with survey as the main method of data collection. The sample size was made up of 400 farmers within the Oyo LGA of the Oyo state. Determining the sample population involved the multistage sampling procedure. The first stage involved using the cluster sampling procedure to divide the LGA into two clusters ‘Overseas’ and ‘Mainland’. ‘Mainland’ represented the communities around the LGA capital whilst the ‘Overseas’ area represented the communities across the Black Volta. The second stage involved random sampling of households where respondents were selected for the study. Data that was collected from the respondents were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed for the analysis of the data.
Results on the demographic characteristics of the farmers showed that majority of the respondents were within the middle ages. The findings also indicated that the farming industry is male dominated. Only a few of the respondents had some level of education ranging from the basic level to the tertiary level. The results also show that majority of the respondents were married with only a few being single. Majority of the married ones had a varied number of children ranging from 1 to 10 or more.
Findings of the study indicate that the push and pull factors as well as the insurance against risk factors are all important as far as migration decisions are concerned in the study area. The pull factors however appear the strongest among all the factors responsible for migration in the area. This finding disagrees with the neoclassical theories of migration (the push-pull theory) which claim migrants migrate for only economic gains though it supports the causes of out-migration in the study area. The study finds that migrants did not only leave the area because of the “push – pull” factors and the differential urban and rural wage, but some migrate as insurance against risk of crop failure among others. This agrees with the New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) model which perceives migration as a risk spreading or sharing behaviour of individuals and households. This explains why migration continues even when migrants do not anticipate jobs in their destination areas.
The study also found that availability of agricultural labour in the study area has decreased in both the ‘Overseas’ and ‘Mainland’ communities. But the decrease is more severe in the ‘Mainland’ communities than in the ‘Overseas’ communities. Shortage of labour availability is indicated by the use of hired labour in the area. The major reason assigned to the decreased labour availability in the area is out-migration.
The main system of ownership of land is the individual ownership hitherto the communal system of land ownership which is supposed to be the traditional land ownership system in the area. This is chiefly attributed to population pressure on the land in the area resulting to land fragmentation. Migration is also found to free more land space for the non-migrants left behind to undertake their farming activities.
Furthermore the findings of the study indicate that out-migration has negative impact on agricultural performance and productivity as well. This is indicated by increase in the time spent on specific tasks on the farm, low level of farm income and low level of agricultural productivity. The study also found that as a result of out-migration the area is not food sufficient. Farm incomes were also found to reduce as household members migrate. Food insecurity and low farm income affect the livelihood of the people in the study areas.
The study however found some positive effects of out-migration at both the household and the community levels. The respondents perceived migration as a positive development in this sense that it increases their portfolio of durable goods and human capital. At the household level out-migration enables some households to acquire certain things they otherwise would not if they did not have migrants living elsewhere.
Conclusion
The study concludes that all the three theoretical explanations for out-migration were responsible for migration in the Oyo LGA. These include the push and pull factors and migration as a strategy for risk aversion. This therefore implies that the study supports the push-pull and the new economics of migration theories used in explaining migration.
Also, the findings also suggest that out-migration causes labour shortages as indicated in Figure 1 (conceptual framework). 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 tedious farm operations such as tiling the land, weeding among others.
The findings further suggest that due to population pressure agricultural land accessibility is gradually changing from the traditional communal land ownership system to the system of individual ownership of land. That out-migration makes more farm land available to be used by the non-migrants (Figure 1).
Furthermore, labour shortage created as a result of out-migration affects agricultural performance negatively. The result of which is longer time spent to undertake a specific farm activity, low farm incomes and low agricultural productivity. Poor performance of agriculture results in low farm incomes even though there is no significant difference between the two types of communities and food insecurity in the Oyo LGA. This results in poor livelihoods of the non-migrants in the LGA.
In a nut shell, the results agrees with Figure 1 that out-migration causes changes in community resources (land and labour) which affects agricultural performance and for that matter livelihoods.
Recommendations
The study therefore makes the following recommendations in other to reduce the rural- urban drift in the Oyo LGA in particular and Nigeria in general.
The study recommends that opinion leaders and chiefs of the two major tribal groups should continue with dialogue on peace.
Increased growth both in agriculture, since most rural workers earn their living from primary production; and the rural non-farm economy. Growth in agriculture will create some new jobs, first and foremost in the industrial forms of farming, though this may not likely contribute to higher productivity and better returns to self-employed farmers. Development or the intensification of the non-farm economy will be vital in creating new jobs and, consequently, putting increasing pressure on rural wages.
When the people see the need for peaceful co-existence, investment in basic education, skills development, health, and early nutrition among the rural people will also in a way curb rural out-migration. This will not only improve the people’s job prospects, but will also reduce unacceptable disparities between rural and urban people. Much can be done to close the urban and rural divide if public resources are allocated accordingly.
References
- Adepoju, A. (2005). Migration in West Africa: A paper prepared for the Policy Analysis and Research Programme of the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM)
- Afshar, R. (2003). “Dynamics of Poverty, Development and Population Mobility: The Bangladesh Case.” Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Migration and Development, organized by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 27-29 August.
- Afshar, O. A. (2003). Effects of Rural-Urban migration of Youth on Agricultural Labour Supply in Umea North Local Government Area of Abita State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Research, 3(2) 77-83.
- Agesa, R. & Kim, S. (2001). Rural to urban migration as household decision: Evidence from Kenya. Review of Development Economics. (5) 60-75.
- Amin, A. (2013 July 5). Northerners not poor because they are lazy. Daily Dispatch, 33 (No.61) 3. 5TH July, 2013.
- Anarfi, J., Kwankye, S., Ofosu-Mensah, A, & Tiemoko, R. (2001). “Migration from and to Nigeria: A Background Paper” Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty. University of Sussex, Brighton. Working Paper C4.
- Anh, D.N. (2003). “Migration and Poverty in Asia: With reference to Bangladesh, China, the Philippines and Viet Nam.” Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Migration and Development, organized by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 27-29 August.
- Beals, R.E., Levy, M.B. & Moses, L. N. (1967). “Rationality and Migration in Nigeria”,
- Review of Economics and Statistics, (49) 480-486.
- Bencherifa, A. & Herbert, P. (2000). Rémigration Nador III. Passau: L.I.S. Verlag GmbH.
- Bencherifa, A. (1996). L’impact de la Migration Internationale sur le Monde Rural Marocain. Séminaire sur “La Migration Internationale”, 6-7 juin 1996. Rabat: CERED, 403-29.
- Bencherifa, A. (1993). Migration Extérieure et Développement Agricole au Maroc. Revue de Géographie du Maroc, 15(1/2), 51-91.
