Planning and Managing Migration Within the Framework of the Migration–development Nexus: A Content Analysis of Ghana’s National Migration Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between migration and development, especially in Global South contexts, is debated in migration studies. Given the real or perceived gains and challenges of migration, countries are formulating and implementing migration policies (including regional agreements) to maximise or minimise youth migration, return migration, climate-induced migration and protect migration-associated human rights issues. However, there is currently no study that analyses the topic for a timely understanding of trends and issues that need urgent redress. Using Ghana’s National Migration Policy as a case study, this article examines the strategic priorities and focus of the document as it relates to the migration–development nexus. The content analyses demonstrate that the policy document focuses on maximising migration gains through remittances, brain circulation, diaspora engagements, transnationalism, return migration and gender mainstreaming while minimising the cost of migration through brain drain. Although the development-oriented nature of the policy document is intriguing, gaps exist that need readdressing to meet the development concerns of the twenty-first century. Notably, there is no recognition of contextual and structural forces that hinder development, no attention to left-behind families and a mismatch between policy intents and practical actions. To this end, recommendations are provided that could potentially address the gaps identified in the review. Overall, the formulation and promulgation of Ghana’s National Migration Policy should not be seen as an end in itself but rather as a starting point to effectively manage migration and development-related issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".