Migrants' satisfaction with working conditions on cocoa farms in Ghana

Abstract

Purpose

Poor working conditions among migrant labourers on cocoa farms may be commonplace. This could affect labour productivity and cocoa industry performance. The paper investigates migrants' satisfaction with working conditions on cocoa farms in Ghana and the key drivers of satisfaction.

Design/methodology/approach

The study employed a five-point Likert scale to evaluate migrants' satisfaction with remuneration, working hours, welfare, health and safety, contract and freedom. Using primary data from 400 migrants and non-migrants in four cocoa districts, multivariate probit regression was employed to evaluate the determinants of satisfaction with working conditions.

Findings

Migrant labourers are generally satisfied with their working hours, nature of contract and freedom they enjoy. However, they are unsatisfied with their remuneration, welfare and health/safety conditions on cocoa farms. All things being equal, secondary occupation, nature of contract, number of farmers served by labourer, annual earnings, farm ownership, education and expectations before migration influence migrants' satisfaction with working conditions.

Practical implications

To improve satisfaction with working conditions and productivity, migrants on cocoa farms should be given protective working gear, long-term or renewable contracts and they should be encouraged to engage in secondary occupations.

Originality/value

Unlike previous studies that focussed on working conditions in the formal sector, this study explores migrants' satisfaction with working conditions in the informal agricultural sector. Also, the study examines labourers' satisfaction with six subcomponents of working conditions compared to previous studies that employed a univariate analytical approach to examine working conditions.

Citation

Amfo, B., Osei Mensah, J. and Aidoo, R. (2021), "Migrants' satisfaction with working conditions on cocoa farms in Ghana", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 240-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2020-0131