Return migration in Ghana: An overview

Return Migration in Ghana: An Overview Valentina Mazzucato June 2007 A study commissioned by the OECD Correspondence: Valentina Mazzucato Amsterdam Institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies (AMIDSt) University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 1018 VZ Amsterdam The Netherlands ([email protected]) © Mazzucato, 2007 The research assistance of Mireille de Koning is gratefully acknowledged. ii ACCRONYMS CMS Centre for Migration Studies ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States GIPC Ghana Investment Promotion Centre GIS Ghana Immigration Service GLSS Ghana Living Standards Survey GSS Ghana Statistical Service Ghana TransNet Ghana Transnational Networks Program, University of Amsterdam INED Institute National d’Etudes Démographiques, Paris IOM International Organization for Migration MIDA Migration for Development in Africa Transrede Transnational Migration, Return, and Development in West Africa Research Project, University of Sussex UG University of Ghana iii Executive Summary The following study reviews what is known about return migration in Ghana: its scale, economic effects, the conditions under which it occurs, and the policies in place to encourage return. The main conclusions are: • Little data exist on return migration in Ghana. Surveys contain too small samples to be nationally representative thus making only tentative conclusions possible. There is a need for a large-scale, systematic data collection effort in order to accurately assess the scale and effects of return migration in Ghana. • Return migrants can affect their home country development through the financial, human and social capital they bring back. Returnees were found to return for the most part with savings accumulated during their stay overseas. They most often used these savings to set up a business in Ghana. However, there is inconclusive evidence as to whether these businesses are sustainable, what effect they have at the national level and whether these businesses would otherwise not have been possible had return migration not occurred. • Employment amongst returnees improves compared with their before-migration situation. However, it remains to be investigated whether the improvement in employment prospects is due to human capital (skills and education) earned abroad or to a general improvement experienced in the Ghanaian economy since the turn of the century. • Returnees often have social networks that include contacts made while abroad. How these contacts impact the business opportunities and general welfare of returnees remains to be investigated. • Migrants’ decisions to return are affected by their experiences overseas and their perceptions of home country conditions. Racism experienced abroad led to migrants wanting to return as they felt they would face better prospects at home. Returnees were not aware of help or information they could receive from government programs to assist return migration. Most received information on home country conditions via their social networks. However, several government initiatives have been put in place since 2001, including a Home Coming Summit, the passing of a dual citizenship act, the creation of a Non-Resident Ghanaian Secretariat, the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre, and the Centre for Migration Studies at the University of Ghana. All these initiatives may lead to improved information and facilitation for returning migrants. • Problems encountered by returnees were economic and socio-cultural in nature. Returnees mentioned having difficulty in accessing credit. Elite returnees experienced resistance from non-migrants in implementing new ideas. This points to the need for policies aimed not only at attracting migrants back home but also helping them to integrate once they return. • Return migration is part of an open-ended process of back and forth movements between countries. Various indications exist that return migrants can make best use of their financial, human and social capital acquired abroad when they return, if they iv continue to move back and forth. Businesses of returnees that fared best were those of returnees that continued to travel back and forth. Social networks with members overseas are maintained through regular contact and visits. This suggests that policies regarding return migration should be focused on facilitating migrant mobility rather than simply trying to bind them to their home country. v Introduction Return migration has increasingly figured in the general debates on migration and development. It is seen as a potential benefit from migration that can lead to greater development for the countries that migrants come from and it can counter balance the negative effects of migration caused by the ‘brain drain’. At the same time little is known about the scope and benefits derived from return migration because until now very little attention was given to it by data collecting agencies of governments in developing countries. The little data that does exist with respect to developing countries is based on small-scale studies with samples that are too small to be nationally representative. This report explores return migration for the case of Ghana: what is known about return migration, what data sets exist and what potentials are there to collect relevant data in the future in order to gain more insight into the scope and effects of return migration in the country. Before beginning our analysis, it is important to be clear on definitions, as some inconsistencies exist within the general literature on return migration. It is important to clarify what qualifies as return migration. The concept has evolved over the years with the result that different studies use different definitions. First, although the term migration can refer to both internal and international migration, most literature on return migration refers to international migration. This study adopts the same definition. Second, in early literature on return migration, return was conceptualized as a definitive move back to one’s home country. However, more recently, the field of transnationalism developed within migration studies, has emphasized the need to view migration as a phenomenon that links at least two countries, a migrant’s home country and the country where she resides, through the social, financial and virtual ties that she maintains with people back home. Given modern transport and communication technologies, migrants maintain linkages with their home countries with greater ease, frequency and in greater numbers than in the past. Migrants move back and forth and are transnationally engaged. Return migration is also part of this process. Return is thus now seen as part of a series of moves rather than a definitive move home. This latter is the definition we use in this report. At the same time migration implies a focus on what migrants do once they are back in their home country, whether temporarily or permanently. Some literature on return migration discusses the benefits from international remittances. We find this confounds the discussion on the effects of return migration because international remittances relate to people being on migration and not having returned from migration. In this study, thus, we only discuss international remittances to the extent that they stop, once a migrant returns, permanently or temporarily, to Ghana. Return migration also necessitates defining a time period that qualifies a person as ‘returned’. For example, are tourists who return to their home country for a one-month period return migrants? In this report we include migrants’ home visits as part of return migration as this can be relevant for the understating of the circulation of ideas and innovations. However, other return migration studies that we will review in this report, define a returnee only as someone who has returned to his home country for more than one year. The report is organized as follows: the first section gives a short introduction on the Ghanaian migration context. Section two presents the different data sources that exist on return migration 1 in Ghana so that the reader can better assess the reliability and generalizability of the information in the sections that follow. Section three discusses what is known about the scope of return migration in Ghana. Section four presents the findings from studies on the economic impact of return migration. Section five discusses the conditions under which migrants have been found to return and section six discusses the policies that are in place in Ghana designed to encourage return migration. Sections three to six each contain a sub-section in which issues are discussed that remain to be investigated in order to increase our understanding of the effects of return migration in Ghana. 1. Characteristics of Ghanaian migration Migration has been part of people’s livelihoods in many parts of Africa throughout history (De Bruin et al. 2001) and Ghana is no exception. In this section we focus on Ghana’s recent migration history since the 1950s. Anarfi et al. (2003) identify four distinct phases in the history of international migration in Ghana: a period of minimal emigration; a period of initial emigration; a phase of large-scale emigration; and, a period of intensification and diasporisation of Ghanaians abroad. Prior to colonialism up until the late 1960s Ghana was relatively economically prosperous and was a country of net-immigration, particularly attracting migrants from the West African sub-region (Twum-Baah et al. 1995). Ghana continued to attract migrants after its independence in 1957 due to its relative economic prosperity, and the governments’ promotion of pan-Africanism as part of its foreign policy (Anarfi et al. 2003). During this time emigration from Ghana was minimal; most emigrants were students or professionals who left to the UK or other English-speaking countries as a result of colonial ties with the UK. Some movements of Ghanaians also took place to other African countries, namely Gambia, Botswana and Sierre Leone. In the second phase, beginning in the mid-1960s, Ghana became a country of net-emigration (Twum-Baah et al. 1995). Economic decline, characterized by a balance of payment deficit, rising unemployment, and political instability pushed many Ghanaians to emigrate. Likewise, this economic crisis also contributed to a decline in immigration to Ghana, as it became an increasingly unattractive place for both foreigners and nationals. At this time, the proportion of foreigners in Ghana decreased from 12.3 % in 1960 to 6.6 % in 1970 (Anarfi et al. 2003). The majority of these emigrants constituted professionals such as teachers, lawyers and administrators who went to other African countries including Uganda, Botswana, Nigeria and Zambia to assist in these countries’ national development following independence (Anarfi et al. 2003). Moreover, the formation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in 1975 stimulated further Ghanaian emigration to other parts of the region. Migrants who had left for the purposes of education or training following Ghanaian independence, either returned to those other countries to work where they had received training, while others stayed on in the countries where they had studied or been trained. Anarfi et al. (2003) estimate that around two million Ghanaians emigrated from the southern regions of the country between the years 1974 and 1981. A third phase in the early 1980s was marked by two shifts in migration patterns: other sectors of society, not only professionals, began to migrate en masse from the southern parts of Ghana and migratory flows spread to more distant destinations in Europe, North America and North Africa (especially Libya). By the 1980s the economy of Ghana was growing at a negative rate (Anarfi et al. 2003). To reverse the negative growth rate, the Ghanaian government implemented a 2 Structural Adjustment Program that included the removal of subsidies for social services such as health, transport and education, which contributed to growing unemployment and social hardship and led to further emigration from Ghana. As a consequence, all labor groups (highlyskilled, semi-skilled and low-skilled) began to migrate. Compounding the situation, Nigeria expulsed all foreigners from its territory including 1.2 million Ghanaians in 1983 and a further 700,000 Ghanaians in 1985. Returning to Ghana was not an option for many as the economic crisis and a severe drought in 1983/4 made livelihoods there precarious. Thus many of those expulsed sought greener pastures overseas. Migration from Ghana to overseas destinations continued steadily so that in the 1990s Ghanaians came to constitute one of the main groups of ‘new African diasporas’ (Koser 2003). The primary destinations overseas were the UK, US, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands and have remained so to date. They are almost equally women and men. Their paths into Europe have been determined by where travel permits were easiest to come by (Peil 1995; Grillo & Mazzucato 2008) although the more highly skilled tended to go to English speaking destinations to be able to practice their professions, with a higher representation of less-skilled ending up in countries such as the Netherlands, Germany and Italy (see for example, Orozco et al. 2005). Accurate figures on total Ghanaian migrants in the world today do not exist due to no systematic data collection on the part of the Ghanaian government and also because some migrants have undocumented status overseas. Twum-Baah (2005), using data obtained from European and North American embassies in Ghana, estimates that approximately 460,000 Ghanaians resided in Europe, Canada and the United States in 20031. He also estimates Ghanaian migrants in African countries (predominantly in ECOWAS countries) to be approximately 1 million. If one allows for migrants in the Middle East and Asia, then these figures would suggest that there are a total of 1.5 million Ghanaians overseas. Remittances from migrants overseas have been estimated to amount to US $1 billion in 2003 (Addison 2005). These figures underestimate the full extent of remittances as much of what comes from migrants is brought through the hands of travelers and goes unregistered. Mazzucato et al. (2005) estimate that unregistered remittances coming into Ghana can amount to 65% of total remittances sent. It is thus likely that remittances coming into Ghana from migrants overseas is closer to US $3 billion, or more than 40% of Ghana’s GDP. This puts Ghana alongside countries like Mexico and the Philippines where remittances comprise an important part of their economy. Various studies show that remittances are spent to start businesses, for housing construction and to help migrants’ extended family members and friends with their general subsistence (Black 2003a, Mazzucato 2008). Additionally, remittances go to fund funerals and other ceremonies (Mazzucato et al. 2006) as well as community development projects (Mazzucato and Kabki 2007). Since the mid-1990s there exists some evidence of return migration to Ghana, as a result of an improving economy in comparison to neighboring West African countries to which many Ghanaians migrated, but also due to the tightening of immigration laws and restrictions on traveling abroad, particularly to European countries that require the possession of valid travel and employment documents (Anarfi et al. 2003; Twum-Baah et al. 1995). Furthermore, Ghana 1 This includes estimates of documented and undocumented migrants. 3 regained political stability in 1992 when democratic elections were held after a decade of military dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of Ghanaians migrating to the ECOWAS region were born in the Ashanti region and 20 % in the Greater Accra region (Twum Baah et al. 1995). Approximately 80 % of Ghanaian emigrants were born in an urban area. Generally, international remittances were found to follow similar patterns with Ashanti and rural regions receiving the greatest proportion of international remittances (Mazzucato et al. 2005). Return migrants also were found to move back to the Ashanti, Western and Greater Accra regions (Twum Baah et al. 1995). Below we look at what is know about return migration, its scope, economic effects, conditions under which it occurs and current Ghanaian policies designed to encourage return. 2. Data sources In general, there is relatively little data on international return migration to Ghana, both in terms of numbers and the impact on the development of the country at large (Black et al. 2003a). In particular there exists no systematic analysis of return migration that is generalizable at the community, regional or national levels. Three main data sources have provided information to varying degrees on return migration to Ghana. These include the Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS), a migration research study of Ghana completed in 1995, both conducted by the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), and the Transrede project conducted by the University of Sussex. The former two data sources each provide little data on return migration in specific, whereas the latter is explicitly about return migration but with a small sample allowing only tentative conclusions about the scope and effects of return migration. The GLSS was conducted in four rounds with the fifth round currently under completion. It provides some information on whether Ghanaian nationals are migrants or not, based on whether individuals are living outside of their place of birth, or have lived outside of their place of birth for over a year. However, the survey is not focused specifically on migration and the number of returnees interviewed in the 1991/2 and 1998/9 rounds is very low. Furthermore, little specific information was asked about these return migrants. The migration research study of 1995 aimed to provide information on the nature, structure, characteristics and dynamics of migration in Ghana (Twum-Baah et al. 1995). The survey contained a module on international return migrants which included information on: personal characteristics; migration history; student returnees; work experience of non-student returnees; post return work experience; remittances and return migrants; and, role in development (TwumBaah et al. 1995: xiii). The research on return migrants was carried out in the regional capitals of Ghana, and a total of 21692 respondents took part in the questionnaire. Yet few results have been published to date on the results of this survey. The most comprehensive documentation of return migration to Ghana is from the Transrede project conducted in 2001. The Transrede project explored the relationship between migration, return and development through a comparative survey of returnees to Ghana and Ivory Coast (Black et al. 2003a). The study collected information about the characteristics, effects and 2 It is interesting to note that the study claims that fewer than half (2169) of an expected 5000 returnees took part in the survey. According to the study ‘most return migrants from Nigeria and Germany were very hostile and uncooperative’ (Twum-Baah et al. 1995: xxiii). Some of the respondents did not trust the confidentiality of their responses and were therefore in some cases unwilling to divulge information. 4 conditions of return migration and compared these between elite and less skilled migrants. While the study presents a great richness of information, some caveats exist. The sample is small and non-random (304 Ghanaian respondents) meaning that conclusions cannot be considered as regionally or nationally representative. The ‘elite’ are well defined encompassing a combination of some of the following: high educational level acquired at home and/or abroad; wielding of power through an occupational or political position, social class or other; wealth; family heritage; and also a self-perception of being part of an elite (so-called “elite consciousness”) (Ammassari 2004). However, the second group is much more loosely defined as all those who do not constitute an elite3. The defining characteristics are therefore more difficult to assess and the results more difficult to interpret. Furthermore, not always were the same questions asked of both groups making some comparisons impossible. A promising data source that is not yet available is the 5th round of the GLSS which contains a specific module on return migration. In particular the module includes: whether within the last five years a member of the household who was previously living abroad had returned to the household; what the activity of the return migrant had been whilst abroad; where the return migrant had gone to; the duration of the stay abroad; whether the household had provided a loan to the returned migrant upon leaving; what the level of education of the return migrant was before leaving; what the occupation had been abroad; whether the returned migrant had remitted money, how, and how much on average per annum (Ghana Statistical Service 2005). A source of data that could help in establishing the number of Ghanaian migrants is the 2000 Census in which a question was asked regarding the location of residence in 1995. To our knowledge, the results from this question have not yet been analyzed at the time of this writing. The University of Ghana has produced some separate small-scale studies addressing specific aspects of return migration. Asiedu (2005) studied the effects of Ghanaian tourists on Ghana’s development while Anarfi (1992, 1990) the health consequences of returning Ghanaian women from Ivory Coast in the 1980s. More recently, studies have been conducted on the Ghanaian government’s efforts to encourage return (Manuh and Asante 2005). Finally, although focused on Ghanaian migration more generally, and not on return, this overview includes some insights gained from the Ghana TransNet research program conducted by the University of Amsterdam on the characteristics of Ghanaian migration and its consequences for return migration (Mazzucato 2005). 3. Scale of return As the previous section argues, national level generalizations have to be interpreted with caution. Table 1 shows some basic characteristics of returnees. In the 7-year period between the two rounds, it seems as though there has been a slight increase in the proportion of female returnees, that returnees are slightly older, although the majority continue to be between the ages of 15 and 54, and slightly less educated. 3 For example, Anarfi et al. (2004) show that 50% of less-skilled migrants had tertiary education, which seems to call into question the appropriateness of the term ‘less-skilled to refer to this group. 5 Table 1. Return migrants in Ghana (1991-1999) Sample size GLSS 1991/2 55 GLSS 1998/9 73 % Sex Male 70.9 Female 29.1 Age 15-24 5.5 24-34 23.6 35-44 30.9 45-54 20.0 55-64 12.7 65+ 7.3 Educational achievement None 32.7 Basic/vocational 38.2 O/A level 18.2 Technical/professional 3.6 Higher 7.3 Source: GLSS 1991/2 and 1998/9 taken from Black et al. 2003a. 67.9 32.1 3.8 26.1 25.1 16.2 13.2 15.6 31.7 44.3 9.4 11.7 2.9 The GLSS of 1991/2 indicated that between 10 and 12 % of return migrants come from international destinations, the majority of whom return from and West African countries. Approximately 80,000 individuals were identified as international returnees from beyond the West African region of whom 11 % had returned in the year previous to the survey, and 20 % in the previous two years (Black et al. 2003a). The GLSS of 1998/9 found that the number of return migrants overall had increased to 16 % (Asenso-Okyere et al. 2000), however there had been a decrease in the number of international return migrants from outside of the West African region (estimated total of 50,000 individuals) despite efforts of Ghanaian and overseas governments to encourage return. In terms of differences between elite and less-skilled migrants, the Transrede project found that both groups returned more or less in equal numbers (Timeoko 2003), however they spent differing amounts of time overseas. Elite migrants were in greater proportions in the categories of length of stay ‘less than one year’ and ‘over 15 years’ and low-skilled migrants were in greater proportions in the categories ‘between one to four years’ and ‘five to 15 years’ (Anarfi et al 2004). Elite return migrants tended to be on average younger than the less-skilled but in both categories, return migrants tended to be between the ages of 30-49 years and thus still in their economically active ages. Less-skilled migrants were almost equally distributed between leaving Ghana for educational reasons (46%) and work or business (43%). For most low-skilled and elite migrants the return was permanent, although 14 % of elite migrants and 18 % of less-skilled migrants claimed their return was temporary. However, as we shall argue below, these categories are problematic. Anarfi and co-authors claim that some returnees maintain a desire to re-emigrate, “such that return should also not be regarded as a permanent move” (Anarfi et al. 2003: 23). Issues • Although it was possible to find some figures characterizing return migration in Ghana, the main conclusion is that there is a dearth of data and that there is a need for a 6 systematic and nationally representative data collection effort. One institution that could conduct such a survey is the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) who has the responsibility of collecting information on movements in and out of Ghana. The GIS should be used to collect return migration data. Below are some suggestions that come out of this overview as to what kind of data should be collected. • Asking people’s nationality is not enough, as many return migrants may have taken on the nationality of the countries where they resided abroad. It is therefore necessary to ask the place of birth of people. Return migration can also be conceived as including secondgeneration migrants to see if they engage with Ghana and what their contributions are. Do they return to live or as tourists in Ghana and what activities do they engage in while they are in the country? Thus questions should also be asked regarding the place of birth of the parents. • There is a need to categorize different types of return migrants as the literature indicates that different types of migrants have different effects. Black et al. (2003a) emphasize that what people do upon return is related to why the go overseas. For example, the amount of savings that migrants return with is a reflection of their reason for migrating, with those migrating to acquire or complete education having accumulated less financial capital than those who migrated for employment reasons. Thus questions should be included concerning one’s reasons for migrating. 4. Effects of return The effects of return migration on the development process of migrants’ home countries depend on what the returnee brings back in terms of financial, social and human capital (Ammassari and Black 2001). All three forms of capital are closely interlinked to one another. Financial capital transfers often take the form of savings, consumption of goods and services brought in, investments into property and businesses, and charity donations made in the country of origin. Human capital transfers amount to the training and work experience acquired whilst abroad. Social capital refers to the networks of social ties established by the return migrant whilst abroad that can be used upon return. In terms of financial capital, both the Transrede study and the 1995 migration study found that self-employed returnees sent remittances regularly and accumulated savings whilst abroad which were brought back upon return (Black et al. 2003a; Twum-Baah et al. 1995). Additionally, the Transrede study found that 90% of less-skilled returnees returned with more than US$ 1,000 and 34% of which returned with greater that US$ 10,000. The uses for these savings were business, land (for housing) and put in savings in a Ghanaian or foreign bank (Black et al 2003a). The Transrede study particularly focused on business investments. Black et al. (2003a) found that 55% of less-skilled migrants were self-employed upon their return. Of these, 80% had formally registered their business, indicating that return migrants do not necessarily move into the informal sector. Of these formally registered businesses, 38% had been set up while the person was overseas and 35% set up the business in the year that they returned. Migrants while abroad mainly consider setting up a business as a way to ensure their living once they return to Ghana. Whilst abroad, migrants ask family members (Black et al. 2003a) or a trusted friend (Casini 2005) to manage the business before they return. The types of businesses were predominantly in the retail and service sectors. Generally, however, there appears to be a wide diversity in the nature 7 and scale of businesses established by entrepreneurs. Examples cited were pharmacist, caterer, traditional doctor, teacher, electrical shop owner, electronics technician, teacher and more (Black et al. 2003a). How these returnees fare as compared to migrants and non-migrants is a question that remains to be investigated. The Transrede project asked respondents to compare the difference between their income and standard of living with those they enjoyed whilst abroad and with those who had not migrated. It results that most respondents considered their income to be about the same as those who did not migrate and to be lower than what they enjoyed abroad. They also considered their standard of living to be lower than what they had abroad (Black et al. 2003a). Thus perceptions of respondents indicate that return migration does not bring many benefits. However, this is not conclusive evidence as these findings are based on perceptions, which may be influenced by various factors including respondents’ current situation and selective memory (making their time abroad seem rosier than it really was). Whether investments in business produce in an improvement for the Ghanaian economy is still an open question. Black et al. (2003a) warn that ‘there needs to be some care in assuming that the self-employed have more potential to generate improved incomes, simply because development rhetoric suggests that entrepreneurs act as the motor of economic growth in liberal economies like Ghana’ (Black et al. 2003a). They point to Teal’s (2001) work, which shows that nonagricultural self-employment wages in Ghana fell by 22% in the 1990s. At the same time, they argue that migration followed by return to self-employment can help alleviate poverty through the employment generated by the creation of small businesses (Black et al. 2003a). Tiemoko (2003) however, points out that there appeared to be a considerable amount of cases of mismanagement or failure of self established businesses. These contrasting pieces of evidence make it difficult to conclude whether business creation through return migration has a net positive effect at the national level. Aside from businesses, return migrants can contribute to the economy through their investments in housing. Although this activity is often dismissed in migration studies as a ‘consumptive’ investment (Black et al. 2003b, Gmelsch 1980; King 1986), investments in housing have various ramifications for the economy. Investments in housing create an active real estate market in Ghana and contribute to job creation in the construction sector (Smith and Mazzucato 2004; Anarfi et al 2004). Additionally, Black et al. (2003a) found that returnees also spent on elaborate funerals. In Ghana funerals are one of the main ways to gain respect in one’s community and it increases one’s social status (Van der Geest 1995). Mazzucato et al. (2006) show that along side these social capital considerations, investments in funerals also lead to real economic multiplier effects in various sectors of Ghanaian economy as well as at various levels: village, urban, national and international. Asiedu (2005) highlights another way that returnees can bring in financial capital to Ghana. Ghanaian tourists returning to Ghana have helped to create and sustain local businesses and markets, as well as create employment and generating income for local non-migrants. Human capital is another potential benefit from return migration through the skills and new knowledge return migrants bring back with them. Anarfi et al. (2004) noted a positive shift in occupation before migration and after return: most Ghanaian returnees improved their employment level or found employment upon return, suggesting a positive outcome for individuals due to migration. While most less-skilled migrants were unemployed before leaving 8 (27%), none were unemployed once they returned. Furthermore 24% were in professional occupations before leaving while 55% were in professional occupations upon their return. While data on occupational type before migration does not exist for the elite group, 73% were in professional occupations upon return. This improvement in occupational status upon return was found despite the fact that many returnees, irrespective of their type, occupied menial jobs whilst abroad, such as cleaning and factory work. Most undertook employment that was not related to what they had been doing at home before migrating. However, it is not clear whether the improvement in employment was due to return migrant skills or the general improvement in the Ghanaian economy that was beginning to take place in the early 2000s. Social capital can be measured in terms of membership of associations, development of social networks and the maintenance of networks with friends and families back home. Anarfi et al. (2004) found that 99% of less-skilled returnees had kept some form of contact with family and 85% with friends in Ghana, indicating that migrants are able to maintain their social networks in Ghana whilst abroad. Furthermore, 62% of less-skilled returnees indicated that they had gained a social network abroad and 42% were part of an association abroad. Seventy-five percent kept personal contacts abroad since their return. In assessing the economic impact of return migration it is also important to include the other side of the coin: that is, the remittances from abroad that are bound to stop. Migrants very often send remittances to their relatives for maintenance of businesses and investment into new ventures. However, if migrants return, then the flow of remittances will invariably stop, and if the return migrant does not bring savings back upon return, financial contributions to her family as well as investment capital for her business will diminish if not end all together. An important caveat to being able to reap the benefits from return migration is raised by Amassari’s (2004) work. She points to the ambiguous relationship between return migrants and non-migrants. In Ghana return migrants are often referred to as “been to”, a term that denotes the so-called ‘know it all’ and arrogant attitude of return migrants towards those who have not migrated. Non-migrants may resist change and be reluctant to participate in new initiatives or ideas for development given their antagonistic feelings towards migrants. This resistance may limit the potential impact of return migrants. Issues • These results relate to the micro level. They give insight into whether returnees are personally better off once they return. However, being a small sample, these results cannot be generalized to the regional or national levels. For example, the results discussed above indicate that migrants gain skills abroad that can help them better their employment position in Ghana upon return. However, the question remains whether these new skills and ideas are propagated and diffused to others in society so that also those who have not migrated can benefit. How do these new skills and ideas get propagated and do they lead to innovations or adaptations of the way in which things are done (institutions, governance structures, civic engagement, etc.)? How important is the resistance of non-migrants to migrant-induced ideas? • A second issue relates to human capital. While the Transrede study records an improvement in returnees employment position comparing before and after migration, there is no conclusive evidence that this is due to the skills returnees pick up while on 9 migration. A larger-scale study comparing returnees with non-migrants is needed to be able to show conclusively that human capital gained abroad improves the employment opportunities of returnees. • A third issue relates to social capital. While the Transrede study found that a large portion of returnees had social networks spanning various countries abroad, what remains to be seen is whether and how these contacts abroad influence business, employment opportunities, and general welfare of returnees. Are these transnational networks put to use for the betterment of non-migrants’ lives as well? • A fourth issue relates to what gets attributed as a benefit of return migration. This has to do with how one defines return migration. If a business is set up whilst on migration and is managed by family members should this be attributed to return migration or to migration more generally? If a migrant returns temporarily and then moves to another country again, should her business in Ghana be attributed to return migration? These examples indicate that it is important to clearly define what constitutes return migration, and if one adopts a broader definition of return as encompassing various moves back and forth, then it is important to acknowledge the fact that the benefits attributed to return go hand in hand with having been abroad and being able to continue to move back and forth. • A final methodological issue is that the benefits attributed to return migration such as is done in the Transrede study can only be definitively proven if the group of return migrants is compared with a group of similarly endowed non-migrants. Only then, can we know if return migrants are better off than they would have been had they not migrated. 5. Conditions for return The Transrede study is the only one of the three main migration studies to have addressed the issue of conditions for return migration and even there, information is partial. Two main findings emerge. First, that both local and overseas conditions impact whether people return and what they do upon their return. Second, that local macro economic and political conditions affect return but also local social conditions are influential in whether people return and what activities they engage in upon their return. Ghosh (2000) points out that the effects of return migration not only depend on what the migrant brings back in terms of capitals, but also on the social, political, and economic context of migrants’ home country. Anarfi and Jagare (2005) argue that only recently has return migration been considered feasible in West African countries due to regained political stability and social and economic opportunities. Continual coups and ongoing political instability in the past in Ghana impeded concrete employment opportunities in firms and industry, forcing many return migrants to conceive of alternative solutions upon return (Ammassari 2004). This resulted in many return migrants turning to entrepreneurship through the establishment of small businesses and firms in the private sector. Indeed, 55% of the less-skilled and 73% of elite Ghanaian migrants had set up an own business upon return (Anarfi et al. 2004). Macro economic conditions were also influential in determining the types of economic activities returnees engaged in. The fact that many returnees set up their own business had to do with the 10 structure of the Ghanaian economy. Non-agricultural self-employment grew from 19.5 % of the workforce in 1987/88 to 27.3 % in 1998/9. Wage employment on the other hand fell from 17.3 % to 13.2 % over the same time period, largely to due a loss of jobs in the government sector as a result of the Structural Adjustment Programs (Black et al. 2003a). Unemployment in Ghana also caused people to migrate for employment purposes. In 2006 unemployment was estimated at 18.4 %, suggesting that it remains a feature of the Ghanaian labor market in recent times (OECD 2007). Indeed, Ghanaian migrants were found to spend longer periods abroad and went more to gain employment as compared with migrants from Ivory Coast who stayed shorter periods and went primarily for educational reasons. Likewise, Ghanaian migrants returned with greater savings than Ivorian returnees (Amassari 2004; Timeoko 2003). Conditions overseas are also important in affecting return. Ammassari (2004) found that more than two thirds of elite migrant respondents in the Transrede survey returned to Ghana with the expectation that they would face better and more professional opportunities at home than abroad, as well as being able to benefit from an improved social status in the country of origin. Discrimination and racism abroad were noted as factors influencing these expectations for return. Related to these perceived enhanced business opportunities, is elite migrants’ search for social standing. ‘Recognition and respect at home’ ranked high among reasons for return. Thus, while financial capital accumulation is bound to their period abroad, elite migrants ‘draw from social and cultural capital that is territorially bound and location specific’ (Ammassari 2004: 140). Indeed, elite migrants were found to invest substantially in grand funeral ceremonies, which contribute to gaining social status in Ghanaian society. The close connection between economic and social reasons for return can be seen in the three most cited reasons for return. Elite return migrants mentioned completion of study, family matters and employment at home. Less-skilled return migrants mentioned family, employment at home, and business opportunities at home. Timeoko notes that ‘while the actual reasons for return may be work orientated, ‘the idea of return is very often related to the sense of family and belonging’ (2003: 5; emphasis added). Ammassari and Black add that ‘decisions to stay, to leave, or indeed to return are closely related to the nature of the household economy and domestic and social power structures’ (2001: 8). Issues: • More systematic research needs to be conducted, identifying the macro economic and political conditions that favor return of migrants. • Research needs to collect information about macro economic and political conditions as well as migrants’ perceptions hereof as these will ultimately influence whether migrants will return. • Conditions for return are just as much about migrant experiences abroad as they are about conditions in the home country. This necessitates a transnational approach to research in which data needs to be collected in the migrant receiving country as well as the migrant sending country. 11 • Research needs to collect information about the social conditions and local power structures that affect migrants’ decisions to return, relating to migrants’ search for social recognition and their perceptions regarding their obligations to the extended family. 6. Policies for return Policy initiatives undertaken by West African governments in the area of transnational migration have largely focused on limiting the movement of skilled migrants to leave, as well as encouraging those migrants abroad to return. These initiatives were implemented with the main purpose to reverse the ‘brain drain’ and to encourage migrants to utilize their accumulated capital for the development of the home country (Ammassari & Black 2001). It has however been claimed that most programs that encourage the return of skilled migrants have been largely ineffective (Anarfi & Jagare 2005). Some governments and international organizations have established and introduced targeted schemes to assist investment in business activities, thereby promoting self-employment and small business formation amongst returning migrants (Black et al. 2003b). Until recently migration was not a focus of the Ghanaian government as testified by the lack of programs geared towards migrants and the lack of statistics collected on migrants and remittances until the turn of this century. When it was talked about, it was mainly in reference to the brain drain and thus seen as something that needed to be hampered (Anarfi et al. 2003). In fact, the brain drain is a big issue in Ghana, where 40% of university faculty positions, 60% of polytechnic faculty positions and 65% of elementary school positions are vacant (Manuh et al. 2005), while at least 25% of tertiary educated Ghanaians are overseas (Carrington and Detragiache 1998). Sixty-one percent of doctors trained in Ghana between 1985-1994 have left the country mainly to the UK and USA (Nyonator and Dovlo 2005). The lack of attention to migration is also reflected in the findings of the Transrede study. Timeoko (2003) found a lack of governmental initiatives to help return migrants adjust to the local context. There appears to be little information that is easily accessible to potential returning migrants on the opportunities, constraints and threats at home. The majority of return migrants said they sought information regarding jobs, legal matters, social tensions or security in Ghana from their family and friends. Few of the return migrants in the Transrede study were aware of the existence of government incentives and programmes for return or the support of business ventures (Anarfi & Jagare 2005: 16). Even fewer had actually received assistance upon return. Black et al. (2003b) suggests that migrants may mistrust their national governments and therefore do not seek out involvement with, or support from, governmental related institutions. To make up for this lack of help, returnees mainly relied on their own social networks. For example, a number of less-skilled migrants became involved in different organizations or associations to ‘enlarge or revitalize their local social network’ (Tiemoko 2003: 8). The Transrede study found that returnees experienced various difficulties upon their return related to economic and cultural factors. Ghanaian returnees claimed that a lack of access to credit or start-up capital was the largest obstacle faced in attempts to set up private businesses (Amassari 2004). One important means to facilitate return would thus be to allow return migrants to obtain starting capital for the setting up of self-employed activities and overcome the limited access to credit common in developing countries. 12 Since the Transrede study, there have been various initiatives that have put migration more central on the government agenda. In 2001 the Ghanaian government organized a “Home Coming Summit” in Accra, aimed at encouraging Ghanaian migrants to invest in their homeland as well as establishing linkages with the African-American Diaspora. A Non-Resident Ghanaian Secretariat was established after the conference to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the summit and to encourage return of migrants through the establishment of ties with Ghanaians abroad. At the same time, the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) was created under the Office of the President whose mandate is to aid migrants and returnees to invest in Ghana through setting up businesses. However, as of 2004 the GIPC was under-resourced, which affected its operations (Manuh and Asante 2005). One of the main problems encountered by the GIPC is knowing how many migrants are overseas and effectively getting in touch with them (personal interview with Chief Executive GIPC, November 22, 2006). Another event drawing media and policy attention to the role of migration in Ghana was the conference on ‘Migration and Development in Ghana’, held in Accra in September 2004, organized by the UNDP, the Dutch Embassy and the University of Ghana. This conference received wide media coverage and resulted in a book ‘At Home in the World’ edited by Manuh (2005). More importantly, the three organizers of the conference established the Centre for Migration Studies at the University of Ghana that became operational in November 2006. This Centre is intended to coordinate and initiate much needed research on the effects of migration in Ghana. Other recent policy initiatives include the Dual Citizenship Act of 2002 in which the Ghanaian government extends dual citizenship to its migrants living abroad to help facilitate, and also encourage, their return. The Ghanaian government also co-operated in IOM-run ‘Return of Qualified African Nationals’ program, and collaborated in the IOM program Migration for Development in Africa (MIDA) on preventing brain drain in the health sector (IOM 2004). The MIDA program involves the temporary or permanent transfer of resources and skills of Ghanaian migrants as a way to promote the development of countries of origin. Most of the initiatives discussed above aim to alleviate the economic obstacles that returnees face. However, the Transrede study found that returnees also faced cultural difficulties. Return migrants often come to realize that they have to regain an understanding of how the local structures work at home, and often face a period of adaptation due to prolonged time spent abroad during which a realistic picture of the home context may be lost. The local work culture and conventional methods of undertaking action, poor local working conditions, lack of adequate infrastructure and basic facilities and modern equipment, as well as a poor and slow bureaucracy characterized by corruption, are some of the major factors that obstruct the return migrants’ ability to induce change (Ammassari 2004: 146). These largely cultural conditions create tensions for migrants trying to introduce change. Ammassari (2004) highlights the fact that efforts to produce change are not always met with success. Attempts to introduce change may be received in a number of ways by the surrounding community or population at large. These initiatives may, for example, cause difficulties or tensions with colleagues in the workplace. The Transrede survey revealed that problems were encountered ‘often’ or ‘very often’ by 25 % of the Ghanaian respondents. Thus, Amassari concludes that programs and policies facilitating return need to take into consideration that development impacts of return depend both on the efforts of the returning migrants, as well as 13 on the attitude of non-migrants. An example she gives of a policy with unintended consequences due to inadequate attention to the attitude of non-migrants is that of offering job opportunities exclusively to returnees. This can lead to local jealousies and to the deterioration of the relationship between return migrants and non-migrants. A final point is that policies need to cater to different types of returnees. Ammassari (2004) found that amongst elite Ghanaian and Ivorian returnees motivations towards return differ across generations. Older returnees were more concerned with contributing to the development of their country of origin because of a sense of duty or responsibility towards nation-building, as well as ample professional opportunities in the public sector following Ghana’s independence (replacement of foreign officials). Younger-generation migrants faced higher competition in the saturated labor market of the public sector, and rather sought out professional opportunities in the private sector. Issues • Policies regarding return migration are focused on migrants’ activities in Ghana. However, it has been argued throughout this report that migrant realities are more complex and involve back and forth movements between countries and multiple engagements in various countries. There is various evidence that suggests that facilitating the mobility of (former) migrants enabling them to maintain and use their transnational social networks, has various advantages for migrants as well as their ability to contribute to their home country’s development. The Transrede study found that returnees maintain their social network abroad even when they return to Ghana. Casini (2005) as part of the Ghana TransNet study found that Ghanaian migrant entrepreneurs, who traveled back and forth between Ghana and their (former) place of residence abroad were the ones whose businesses fared best. Mazzucato (2005), although focused on Ghanaian migrants overseas, found that those migrants who were free to travel back and forth to Ghana were best able to be doubly engaged and thus contribute to Ghana’s development. This all suggests that policies regarding return migration and development should be focused on facilitating migrants’ mobility rather than simply trying to bind them to their home country. Conclusions The scope and effects of return migration in Ghana are not clear. Studies have highlighted various dynamics that are related to return migration yet no conclusive evidence has emerged as to whether these lead to a net positive, negligible or negative effect for the Ghanaian economy. Furthermore, certain relationships between return migration and observed dynamics (for example, improvement in employment of returnees) still need to be proven. There is a glaring need thus for systematic, large-scale and longitudinal data collection and analysis on return migration in Ghana. Given this overarching conclusion, we draw four recommendations regarding the areas of attention that future research on return migration should have. We follow with three suggestions of ways that the OECD could link with current efforts to collect systematic, large-scale data on return migration in Ghana. 14 • Transnationalism is one of the newer approaches to the study of migration. This approach emphasizes that migrant lives are affected by the relationships they maintain in various countries and vice-versa, the lives of people back home are affected by the ties they maintain with migrants overseas. Various studies in this overview point to the fact that Ghanaian (return) migrants maintain social relationships in Ghana as well as overseas and that these relationships affect the activities they engage in and how they engage in these activities. Furthermore, it was shown that both conditions in Ghana as well as overseas impact migrants’ decisions to return and their ability to set up viable livelihoods upon their return. All these findings point to the fact that any future research effort assessing the impact of return migration needs to have a transnational approach and study the economic, political and social conditions faced by migrants overseas as well as the conditions faced by returnees in Ghana. • A transnational approach also entails recognizing that return migration cannot be conceptualized as a definitive move back to one’s home country. Rather return migration needs to be seen as part of an open-ended migration process in which possibilities for back and forth movements exist. As King put it ‘return may be the prelude to further episodes of spatial mobility’ (2000:8). This implies that categories of return migrants such as ‘permanent’ or ‘temporary’ are inaccurate as the claim that a migrant has come back permanently does not say anything about her potential future moves. A second implication of such a definition is that benefits attributed to return migration may be due to the fact that migrants can and do travel back and forth. • Ghanaian migration is characterized by the fact that there are almost as many women as men who travel overseas. However, the gender dimension of return migration has yet to be researched. Do women show different patterns of return and do they engage in different activities upon their return? Does the return of male or female migrants have different consequences for the wellbeing of the family at home to which they return? These are issues that have not been dealt with in the literature but that merit attention given the high proportions of Ghanaian female migrants. • Studies on return migration need to be clear on the definition of return that is used in order to assess the effects of return and not confuse these with the effects of migration in general. Activities should be included only to the extent that they entail the return of a migrant for a pre-defined period of time. Thus studies on return migration should be concerned with migrant remittances only to the extent that these will be an activity that stops as a consequence of return. Studies were found to mix the discussions on remittances with that of return, which gives a somewhat confusing picture of the effects of return migration. Where to go from here? There are various initiatives undertaken in Ghana to improve the state of our knowledge on migration in general and on return migration in particular. It seems worthwhile for the OECD to seek collaboration with these new initiatives in its search for information about return migration. • The newly created CMS at the University of Ghana (UG) brings together researchers from different university departments and institutes of the UG with a track record on migration research. It is about to set up a research program in 2007 to investigate 15 different aspects of the effects of migration, both internal and international. This is an opportune moment to seek their collaboration in conducting a nationally representative study on return migration. • The Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) has the responsibility for collecting data on movements into and out of Ghana. As such it is best placed to document the scale of return migration in Ghana, however, no efforts are being made to collect such information. Collaboration could be sought with the GIS to produce a data collection tool in which return migrants are counted. • The Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques (INED) in France together with the University of Amtserdam, the above-mentioned CMS and various other European and African institutes, has applied to the European Union under their 7th framework funding program to finance a study on transnational migration between Africa and Europe. The study aims to collect unique, reliable, comparative and representative data on the characteristics and behavior of Sub-Saharan African migrants, both documented and undocumented. In so doing it will analyze (1) the socio-demographic characteristics of migrants, (2) the routes of migration from Africa to Europe, and (3) the patterns of return migration and circulation. The study has a transnational research design by collecting data amongst African households and at the same time amongst their migrants in Europe. Given the large scope of the study, more funding is being sought to finance the within Africa data collection. 16 References Addison, E. (2005) ‘The macroeconomic impact of remittances’, in Manuh T. (ed.) At Home In The World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: SubSaharan Africa Press, 118-138. Ammassari, S. & R. Black (2001) ‘Harnessing the potential of migration and return to promote development’, IOM Migration Research Series No. 5: 1-56. Ammassari, S. (2004) ‘From nation-building to entrepreneurship: The impact of elite return migrants in Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana’, Population, Space and Place 10: 133-154. Anarfi, J. (1992) ‘Sexual networking in selected communities in Ghana and the sexual behaviour of Ghanaian female migrants in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire’, in T. Dyson (ed.) Sexual Behaviour and Netowrking: Anthropological and Socio-Cultural Studies on the Transmission of HIV. Liège: Editions Derouaux-Ordina, 233-247. Anarfi, J. (1990) ‘The socio-economic implication of Ghanaian woman in international migration: the Abidjan case study’, in conference proceedings ‘The role of Migration in African Development: Issues and Policies for the 90’s’, Spontaneous Papers, Nairobi: Union for African Population Studies, 717-739. Anarfi, J., Kwankye, S.O., Ababio, O-M. & R. Tiemoko (2003) ‘Migration from and to Ghana: A background paper’ Working Paper C4 Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty: 2-38. Anarfi, J.K., Kwankye, S.O. & C. Ahiadeke (2004) ‘Migration, return and impact in Ghana: A comparative study of skilled and unskilled trans-national migrants’, paper presented at “Conference on Migration and Development in Ghana” Accra, September 14-16, 2004. Anarfi, J.K. & S. Jagare (2005) ‘Towards the Sustainable Return of West African Transnational Migrants: What are the Options?’, paper presented at “New Frontiers of Social Policy” conference, Arusha, Tanzania, December 12-15, 2005. Asenso-Okyere, W.K., Twum-Baah, K.A., Kasanga, A., Anum, J. & C. Portner (2000) ‘Ghana Living Standards Survey report of the fourth round (GLSS 4)’ Accra: Ghana Statistical Service. Asiedu, A. (2005) ‘Some benefits of migrants’ return visits to Ghana’ Population, Space and Place Vol. 11: 1-11. Black, R., King, R. & R. Tiemoko (2003a) ‘Migration, return and small enterprise development in Ghana: A route out of poverty?’ Sussex Migration Working Paper no. 9. Black, R., R. King, J. Litchfield, S. Ammassari & R. Tiemoko (2003b) ‘Transnational migration, return and development in West Africa: Final research report’ Transrede Research Project, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex: 1-17. 17 Carrington, W. and E. Detragiache (1998) ‘How big is the brain drain?’, IMF Working Paper 98/102. Casini, S. (2005) ‘Negotiating personal success and social responsibility: Assessing the developmental impact of Ghanaian migrants’ business enterprises in Ghana’, M.A. Thesis, University of Amsterdam. Download from: www2.uva.nl/ghanatransnet/output. De Bruin, M., R. van Dijk and D. Foeken (eds.) (2001) Mobile Africa. Changing Patterns of Movement in Africa and Beyond. Leiden: Brill. Diasporan News (2004) ‘About 3 million Ghanaians live abroad’, 16 September 2004. http://www.ghanaweb.com. Ghana Statistical Service (2005) Ghana Living Standards Survey 5 (with non-farm household enterprise module) 2005/6, Section 11E-G: Migrants and remittances questionnaire, Accra: GSS. Ghosh, B. (2000) ‘Return migration: Reshaping policy approaches’, in Ghosh, B. (Ed). Return Migration, Journey of Hope or Despair? Geneva: IOM/UN: 181-226. Gmelch, G. (1980) ‘Return migration’ Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 9: 135-159. Grillo, R. and V. Mazzucato (2008) ‘Africa <> Europe: A double engagement’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, forthcoming. IOM (2004) ‘Migration and development: Current policy challenges’, Geneva: IOM/Migration Policy and Research Department. King, R. (2000) ‘Generalizations from the history of return migration’, in Ghosh, B. (ed.) Return Migration, Journey of Hope or Despair? Geneva: IOM/UN: 7-55. King, R. (ed.) (1986) Return Migration and Regional Economic Problems. London: Croom Helm. Koser, K. (2003) ‘New African Diasporas: An introduction’, in Koser, K. (ed.) New African Diasporas. London: Routledge, 1-16. Manuh, T. (ed.) (2005) At Home In The World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan Africa Press. Manuh, T. and R. Asante (2005) ‘Reaping the gains of Ghanaians overseas: An evaluation of the Home Coming Summit of 2001’, in Manuh T. (ed.) At Home In The World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan Africa Press, 292-310. Manuh, T., R. Asante and J. Djangmah (2005) ‘The brain drain in the higher education sector in Ghana’, in Manuh T. (ed.) At Home In The World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan Africa Press, 250-276. Mazzucato, V. (2005) ‘Ghanaian migrants' double engagement: A transnational view of development and integration policies’, Global Migration Perspectives, no. 48, 17 pp. 18 Mazzucato, V. (2008) ‘The double engagement: A transnational view of Ghanaian migrants’ lives between the Netherlands and Ghana’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, forthcoming. Mazzucato, V. and M. Kabki (2007) Small is beautiful: The politics of transnational relationships between hometown associations and communities back home. Paper presented at ‘AfricanAlternatives: Initiative and Creativity beyond Current Constraints’ AEGIS, Leiden, July 2007. Mazzucato, V., M. Kabki & L. Smith (2006). ‘Transnational migration and the economy of funerals: changing practices in Ghana’, Development and Change 37 (5): 1044-1069. Mazzucato, V., B. van den Boom and N.N.N. Nsowah-Nuamah (2005) ‘The impact of international remittances on local living standards: evidence for households and rural communities in Ghana’ in Manuh T. (ed) At Home In The World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan Africa Press, 139-152. Nyonator, F. and D. Dovlo (2005) The health of the nation and the brain drain in the health sector. Ghana’ in Manuh T. (ed) At Home In The World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan Africa Press, 227-249. OECD/ AFDB (2007) African Economic Outlook – Ghana country study. Retrieved May 20, 2007 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/51/38562673.pdf. Orozco, M., M. Bump, R. Fedewa and K. Sienkiewicz (2005) Diasporas, development and transnational integration: Ghanaians in the U.S., U.K. and Germany. Institute for the Study of International Migration and Inter-American Dialogue. Report commissioned by Citizens International through the U.S. Agency of International Development. Peil, M. (1995) Ghanaians abroad. African Affairs 94(376): 345-67. Smith, L. and V. Mazzucato (2004) ‘Miglioriamo le nostre tradizioni: Gli investimenti dei migranti Ashanti nelle abitazioni e nelle imprese’, Afriche e Orienti 6 (1-2): 168-185. Teal, F. (2001) ‘Education, incomes, poverty and inequality in Ghana in the 1990’s’, Working Paper 159, Centre for the Study of African Economies, Oxford. Tiemoko, R. (2003) ‘Migration, return and socio-economic change in West Africa: The role of family’, Sussex Migration Working Paper 15, Sussex Centre for Migration Research: 1-17. Twum-Baah, K.A. (2005) ‘Volume and characteristics of international Ghanaian migration’ in Manuh T. (ed) At Home In The World? International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan Africa Press. Twum-Baah, K.A., Nabila, J.S. & A.F. Aryee (eds.) (1995) ‘Migration research study in Ghana’, International Migration Vol. 2, Accra: Ghana Statistical Service. Van der Geest, S. (1995) ‘Old people and funerals in a rural Ghanaian community: ambiguities in family care’, Southern African Journal of Gerontology, 4(2): 33-40. 19 20