Outside the Money Loop: Village life in Africa

Much of the African economy is rural. The population is oriented towards the land with subsistence farming remaining the main source of production. As the seasons come and go so do the people move with the cycle. Nothing untowardly about that except the agricultural practices and animal husbandry techniques are pretty much what was in play a hundred years ago. Much of the seed has been kept from harvest to harvest. The common breeding technique is to bring in the neighbour’s bull once the heat is on. The chicken will roam the village with their chicks and the crow will perch ready to feed. The paths meander along the homesteads just as our grandfathers decreed.

That is not to say the village is immune to modernity. A few things have made inroads. There will be the motorcycle toot-tooting along the paths. A transistor radio or even the odd solar powered television will be first with the news. The granny will also have a basic cell phone safely zipped in a pouch. In some instances newfound wealth is evident by the humming of a petrol generator. Certainly in the last decade or so more homes have had electricity connected. But the connected homestead often has a connection to resources from outside the village. A son or sometimes a daughter with a job in the city will be the primary source of such developments. Increasingly, relatives abroad account for some of the prosperity of recent years. Africans abroad are sending back billions of dollars to their kin.

According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development IFAD, “Remittance flows to and within Africa approach US$40 billion. Countries in Northern Africa (for example, Morocco, Algeria and Egypt) are the major receivers in the continent. Eastern African countries depend heavily on these flows, with Somalia standing out as particularly remittance dependent. For the entire region, annual average remittances per migrant reach almost US$1,200 and on a country-by-country average represent 5 per cent of GDP and 27 per cent of exports”. (http://www.ifad .org/remittances/maps/africa.htm ). 

That probably explains why thousands of Africans cross illegally into Europe every year or die trying.  Incidentally much of the press focuses on intercontinental migration from Africa whereas intraregional migration within the continent accounts for much of the movement. IFAD notes, ‘of all the world’s regions, however, Africa’s predominant migration is the most intraregional.’ West and Southern Africa regions account for most of the internal migration.

By and large the remittances go into developing housing, paying for health or education. In a WORLD BANK report titled Leveraging Migration in Africa: Remittances, Skills and Investments, it is revealed ‘that a significant portion of international remittances are spent on land purchases, building a house, business, improving a farm, agricultural equipment, and other investments (as a share of total remittances, investment in these items represented 36.4 percent in Burkina Faso, 55.3 percent in Kenya, 57.0 percent in Nigeria, 15.5 percent in Senegal, and 20.2 percent in Uganda).  A substantial share of within-Africa remittances was also used for these purposes in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. The share of domestic remittances devoted to these purposes was much lower in all of the countries surveyed, with the exception of Nigeria and Kenya.’

Lounging in the village: Appearances can be deceiving

 However, the report notes rather ominously on Page 155 that, ‘The evidence for Africa from household surveys for investment in agriculture equipment is somewhat limited’. That probably explains why there has not been a marked shift in agricultural production techniques despite the massive infusion of cash from the Diaspora in African economies. It also highlights the fact much of the remittance is in small but not necessarily insignificant installments sent over a number of months in a year.

There is no evidence in the WORLD BANK report of any significant impact of remittances on agricultural production. That could mean farm families are generally under-represented among migrants. Alternatively, few farm families find it worthy to invest in improved agricultural production. The latter is highly unlikely.

That there has not been any significant improvement in African agricultural production is evident in terms of food insecurity and poverty. IFAD estimates that agricultural production accounts for 30 percent of African economic output and employs 60 percent of the population.  Much of the production in the sector is in smallholder farms steeped in backward practices.

I have deliberately ignored the $55 billion in annual Official Development Assistance and inputs from local budgetary resources primarily because these are often tied in bureaucratic red tape and may not impact directly on individual farmers in the short to medium term. That an annual infusion of $40 billion into the pockets of Africans can fail to have an immediate impact on the single most important sector of the economy suggests that sector is totally marginalised. Even a fraction of the $22 billion in annual remittances going to Sub Saharan Africa annually is sufficient to make an impact if invested in agriculture.

It is likely the bulk of the remittances go into funding consumption. The emergence of American-style malls in cities across Africa is not testimony of improve productivity but a new consumerist culture funded in part by remittances. The surge in vehicle and other imports is due in part to remittances. These remittances account for 5 percent of GDP and are equivalent to 27 percent of exports. However, little trickles to the sector employing most people. This suggests that as presently structured, a major chunk of the African population is literally cut off from the mainstream. Farm families are least likely to have a lifeline to the outside world.

The journey from the city to the village then becomes a journey into the past. Everything from the housing, water and the paths are straight from the early years of the last century. The scent of firewood, the singing of the birds and the noise of children at play could be straight from my own childhood. It does not matter that there are far more huts dotting the land. For the city dweller or ‘has-been’ from Europe and America the aroma and aura of the village can be romantic. The sounds can bring back the simple days of childhood. For the two or three weeks on vacation the occasional visitor is actually enthralled. Fresh food from the farm available cheaply or the goat slaughtered on banana leafs are a welcome change.

However, for the villager the apparent joy masks gnawing lack. There is far too little money in the village economy to pay for school, health or other basics. The fraternity of the village is not borne out of choice- it is a must for common survival. If we cannot build good houses shall we invest in wider roads?

Poor productivity means every available land is continually put to the plough. That leads to soil degradation and even poorer production. With falling harvests, trees are felled for firewood and charcoal leading to further land degradation. The village has now become far more insecure economically than in the times of our grand-parents and parents. The only solution for the youth is to flee- to the city or far beyond. The urban slum, with all its imperfections, becomes a refuge for the rural poor. Only the elderly are left to tend the land in the ways they know best- using traditional methods. The knowledge and education of the modern era flees with the youth to the city- or beyond! It is not that the village is conservative- everyone with a chance elsewhere is fleeing.