Expenditure decisions on international remittances received by households in Ghana

Figures & data

Table 1. Estimates and projections of remittance flows to low- and middle-income regions.

Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020e	2021f	2022f
Low and Middle Income	453	447	485	532	559	549	589	605
East Asia and Pacific	128	128	134	143	148	136	131	131
Europe and Central Asia	48	49	59	66	70	64	67	70
Latin America and the Caribbean	69	74	82	90	97	103	126	131
Middle East and North Africa	50	49	52	53	55	56	62	64
South Asia	118	111	117	132	140	147	159	162
Sub-Saharan Africa	41	37	42	49	49	42	45	48

Source: World Bank–KNOMAD staff estimates. See appendix to the Migration and Development Brief 32 for forecasting methods (World Bank, 2020).

Note: e = estimate; f = forecast.

Figure 1. The free balance theory.

Source: Adpated from Kroes (2005).

Figure 2. Map of Kumasi.

Table 2. Demography of respondents.

Gender	Frequency	Percentage
Male	411	59.65
Female	278	40.35
Total	689	100
Age
Average	42
Median	38
Youngest	20
Oldest	80

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 3. Income level of respondents.

Income	Count	Percentage
GHS 15,000 and above	200	29.02
GHS 3,960 - 14,999	435	63.13
GHS 2,860 - 3,959	42	6.10
GHS 2,859 and below	12	1.74
Total	689	100
Average Income	GHS 15,890.67
Median Income	GHS 9,000
Minimum Income	GHS 1,000
Maximum Income	GHS 384,000

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 4. Multiple responses- why did the family provide support?

Reason for support	Count	Percent Of Responses	Percent Of Cases
A duty of care to family member	476	65	70
A form of investment	258	35	37
Total	734	100	107

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 5. Reason for migrant travels.

Reason	Frequency	Percentage
Education	89	13%
Employment	520	76%
Marriage	39	6%
Visit/Vacation	11	2%
To Join the Family	30	4%
Total	689	100%

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 6. Decision on remittance expenditure.

Status	Frequency	Percentage
Head of household	33	4.8%
Parents	10	1%
Siblings	1	0%
The recipient (respondent non-household heads)	318	46%
The remitter	325	47%
Others	2	0.2%
Total	689	100%

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 7. Implications for not following instructions.

Reaction of remitter	Count	Percent of Responses	Percent of Cases
Remitter will be angry	184	68%	27%
Remitter will stop sending	75	28%	11%
Remitter will do nothing	12	4%	2%
Total	689	100	40%

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 8. Restricted and unrestricted remittance.

	Remittance (GHC)	Restricted (GHC)	Percentage	Unrestricted (GHC)	Percentage
Total	2,802,656	1,176,275	41.97	1,626,381	58.02
Average		1,707.22		2,360.50

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 9. Use of restricted remittance.

Projects	Frequency	Percent Of Responses	Percent Of Cases
Education	67	20%	10%
Health	52	16%	8%
Family Support	119	36%	17%
Building	66	20%	10%
Other	24	7%	3%
Total	328	100%	48%

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 10. Relationship between restricted remittance and socioeconomic status.

Variable	Age
Educational level of respondent	.-495*
Age of receiver	.454*
Amount of remittance by sender	.693*
Age of respondent	.521*

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 11. Use of unrestricted remittance.

	Consumer Goods	Capital Goods	Total
Amount of Remittances	316,395	1,409,986	1,726,381
Percentage	8%	82%	100%

Source: Field Data (2020).

Table 12. Relationship between restricted remittance and socioeconomic status.

Variable	Age
Education level of respondent	.371*
Income of respondent	.471*
Health of respondent	.365*
Period of stay (after a year)	−.503*

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

World Bank. (2020). Phase II: COVID19 crisis through a migration lens. Migration and development brief 33. https://www.knomad.org/publication/migration‐and‐development‐brief‐33

 Google Scholar