Do Foreign Remittances Matter in Attaining Zero Hunger?: Evidence From Rural Nigeria

Introduction

Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa (over 160 million people), but 61 percent of her population are malnourished (World Bank, 2012; Momodu et al., 2011). Nigeria is characterized by threat of hunger, and among 113 countries, the nation ranked 92 by the Global Food Security Index in 2017 (The Economists, 2017). This is because with the advent of commercial oil exploration in the early 1970s, the fortunes of agriculture started to dwindle with a resultant downward decline in productivity and consequently food insecurity (Vision, 2010). Food insecurity problem in Nigeria has been identified to be mainly access dominated. Food access has been defined as the ability of individuals or households to acquire sufficient quantities and quality of food to meet all households’ members’ nutritional requirements (Langsworthy, et al., 2003).

The rural households take the larger share of food insecurity in Nigeria. The greatest challenge faced by rural communities is concentrated mainly on food insecurity and nutritional concern. In investigating household food security strategies, migration and remittance are highlighted as possible pathways out of household food insecurity (Kuuire et al., 2013). Generally, it is assumed that households that receive remittance are more likely to withstand risk of food insecurity (Nguyen & Winters, 2011; Mango, et al., 2014). Dia (1992) described it as a very efficient strategy to promote agricultural investments and reduce food insecurity and income risks by families in Senegal. This financial aid of remittances seems to flow directly to the people who really needed it and does not require a costly bureaucracy on the sending side. Luginaah, et al. (2009) highlighted the importance of food remittances and transportation networks as important aspects of food security in the Northern part of the Ghana. Combes, et al. (2014) also asserted the power of remittances in reducing the effects of food price shocks in low-income countries and sub-Saharan African countries. Households spend the vast majority of remittances received on their basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. This consumption, combined with investment in health care and education, constitutes 80-90 per cent of remittance spending (IFAD, 2007). Increased remittances an equivalent of a private “welfare payment” sent from abroad are seen to help recipients during an economic downturn and also help to smoothen consumption of the recipients (Martin, 2005).