ABSTRACT
In the growing literature on youth transitions, comparatively little attention has been paid to the role that young people play as providers, particularly support for people outside of a nuclear family unit. Based on 92 interviews with 44 young adults living in rural Ghana, this research investigates the multiple reasons why they provide financial and in-kind support to a range of immediate, extended and non-family members. We create a typology of motivations, identifying eight reasons youth identified for supporting people across four generations. These drivers of support relate to the past, present and future and do not fall neatly into dichotomies of self-interest or altruism. Some are situational, dependent on the need of the recipient, the ability of the young person to provide support at that point in time and/or circumstances of other people in their broader family and social networks. Youth identified multiple reasons for supporting the same person and articulated different motivations depending on their relationship to the recipient and their gender. Together, these nuanced explanations offer insights into an often-overlooked aspect of youth transitions and a departure point for further research into the important role young people play in supporting others in their families and communities.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the young people who have been part of this tracer study for generously sharing their experiences and insights. We are grateful to the dedicated fieldwork team: Emmanuel Ayisi Manu, Prince Adu-Appiah, Kwabena Kobia Mensah, Vicentia Osei, Victoria Johnson, Mary Doris Dwumah, Sylvia Sena Djisah, Barbara Kumi, Lois Antwi-Boadi, Abigail Assuamah Yeboah, Patrick Sakyi Wilson, Selom Deku, Clara Opoku Agyemang, the MASO youth facilitators, Belinda Acheampong, Helen Nti and Ethel Seiwaa Boateng. We thank our colleagues at MASO/Solidaridad, PDA and ODI for their ongoing support for this work.
Disclosure statement
Nathaniel Amoh Boateng is employed by Solidaridad West Africa, which implemented the MASO training programme. At the time of writing, Anne Buffardi and Victoria Ampiah worked for organisations that served as a ‘learning partner’ for the MASO programme. We declare no other financial conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Participatory Development Associates Ethical Review Committee, PDA ERC No: 005/19.
Notes
1 To be eligible to participate in the training programme, youth were between the ages of 17–25 at enrolment. Alongside each quote, we report their age at the time of that interview round, between 2–4 years since enrolment.