Received: 7 February 2023 Revised: 3 August 2023
DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12333
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Do remittances align with energy transition
in Africa? An approach with the level
of income of countries
Barnabe Abba Yadou 1 | Philemon Bonaventure Ntang 1
Raisa Tchio Tchieutsouah 2 | Valery Abba Abam-Nde 1
1
Faculty of Economics and Management,
University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon
2
Faculty of Economics and Management,
University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon
Correspondence
Barnabe Abba Yadou, Faculty of Economics
and Management, University of Maroua,
Maroua, Cameroon.
Email: abbayadou@gmail.com
Nat Resour Forum. 2023;1–23.
Accepted: 7 August 2023
|
Abstract
The main objective of this paper was to highlight the nexus
between migrant remittances and energy transition in a
panel of 45 African countries from 2000 to 2020. The study
utilized several estimation techniques ranging from fixed
and random effects to two-stage least square. The empirical
findings suggest that remittances reduce energy transition
in African countries. However, the growth of remittances
reverses this relationship. There is therefore an U-shaped
relationship between remittances and energy transition in
Africa. Furthermore, when disaggregating countries by
income level, the results reveal that in low-income coun-
tries, remittances reduce energy transition, but this effect is
reversed in low- and middle-income countries. Remittances
are therefore a determinant in the choice of households for
the process of energy transition. Thus, in order to take
advantage of this relationship, African countries need to
emphasize policies that can increase the flow of remittances
by improving their financial system. In addition, migrant
remittances contribute to improving access to modern, reli-
able, and affordable energy services through income growth
of remittance-receiving households.
KEYWORDS
Africa, clean cooking fuel, energy transition, remittances, U-shape
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/narf © 2023 United Nations. 1
2 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

Energy transition is an issue of concern both in developed and developing countries. However, in developing coun-
tries, the problem is more in terms of access to clean cooking fuel for households. In developing countries, 58% of
the population had access to clean cooking in 2018 (see Appendix 1). There are, however, important disparities both
among developing regions and countries in the same regions. For instance, in Africa only 29% of the population had
access to clean cooking fuel in 2018 and 853 million of the population relied on traditional use of biomass for
cooking. In 2020, 3 billion people lacked access to alternative energy for cooking and continued to rely on wood
every day (Isnad, 2019) and many of whom live in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In SSA, only 17% of the population had
clean cooking access (IEA, 2020). Furthermore, the recent intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) report
on climate change shows that 25% of black carbon emissions come from cooking and residential heating. For more
than 2.6 billion people worldwide still lack access to clean energy, about 2.5 million people prematurely die of indoor
air pollution, especially cooking smoke annually. This number of premature deaths from indoor air pollution in SSA
steads at 490,000 per year, with women and children being the worst affected category. The vast majority of people
in SSA without access to clean cooking fuel rely on gathering biomass for cooking, in particular in rural areas, which
dramatically damages their health and impairs productivity improvements. Based on these statistics, it is projected
that by 2030, 674 million people worldwide are likely to live without electricity and over 2.4 billion people world-
wide may lack access to clean fuels and technology for cooking facilities (IEA, 2020). It is, therefore, necessary for
African countries to turn to less polluting and environmentally friendly fuels.
In order to achieve universal access to clean cooking facilities by 2030, the United Nations has drawn the sus-
tainable development goal (SDG) 7. The aim of SDG 7 is to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and
modern energy by 2030. Migration is one of the ways to attempt this objective through remittances and knowledge
transfer. As Scott et al. (2018) specify, “Migration is one of the defining of the 21st century and significantly contrib-
utes to economic and social development everywhere. As such, migration will be key to achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).”1
Over the last few decades, work on migration and energy transition nexus has taken on a prominent role in
research. In general, international migration is a factor of social and economic development in the migrants' countries
of origin by increasing investment and reducing poverty among migrants and their families (Foresti & Hagen-
Zanker, 2017). This development effect is pushed through migrant remittances by increasing the income of recipient
households and the transfer of knowledge. It is estimated that 258 million people live outside their countries of ori-
gin with a growth of 49% since 2000 and 3.4% of the world's population is international migrant. Drawing from esti-
mates, it is observed that, migrant remittances in low- and middle-income countries reached a threshold of
$529 billion in 2018, $546 billion in 2019 and $626 billion in 2022 (World Bank, 2022). Remittances contribute to
reduce market constraints by increasing the income of recipient households (Amuedo-Dorantes & Pozo, 2011; Pan
et al., 2020). Thus, migrant remittances can be used as an alternative source of income for recipient households to
access clean fuel and technologies for cooking. As Hassan (2020) specifies in Bangladesh, remittance income is an
important source that facilitates migrants' household's transition to modern energy. A careful examination of the
effects of remittances on the welfare of households in developing countries reveals that remittances can foster
the process of energy transition from solid fuels to clean fuels in Africa. Yet, as far as we know, the relationship
between remittances and access to clean energy has not been empirically investigated in Africa.
Therefore, the main objective of this paper was to highlight the effects of remittances on the energy transition
in African countries from 2000 to 2020. In addition, the paper analyzes the role of financial development in modulat-
ing the effect of remittances on access to clean cooking fuel.
The contribution of this paper is threefold, both in terms of literature and methodology. First, only Hassan
(2020) in a study carried out in Bangladesh investigated the effect of remittances on energy transition in developing
countries. This paper is the first effort to investigate the effect of remittances on the energy transition in a panel of
African countries. Second, this study takes into account the income level of the countries in the sample, ignored by
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 3

previous papers in the literature. This is important for establishing policy recommendations for each group of coun-
tries. And lastly, we take into account the potential endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity (Asongu &
Odhiambo, 2020; Efobi et al., 2019) by adopting a two-stage least square (2SLS) with instrumental variable. In fact,
there is a bi-directional effect between foreign capital flows and energy (Wen et al., 2023).
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a brief review of the literature (2), followed by
Section 3 which explains the methodology used to address the objective of the study strategy and data (3). Section 4
presents and discuss the empirical results, while Section 5 offers the conclusion and policy recommendations.

2 | R E V I E W O F LI T E R A T U R E

2.1 | Theoretical underpinning

The theoretical underpinning of this study is based on the energy ladder hypothesis, energy stacking theory, and
new economics of labor migration (NELM). According to the energy ladder hypothesis, income is the determining
factor in the energy transition from traditional to modern energy (Leach, 1992). Income makes it possible to install
cooking equipment and adopt more modern means of cooking, such as gas. Consequently, as socioeconomic status
improves, particularly income, households switch from the uses of solid fuels to that of cleaner fuels
(Heltberg, 2004; Hosier & Dowd, 1987). Besides, the energy stacking theory shows that if a household's economic
status is improved, they consume a portfolio of energy sources that includes more clean fuels (Amoah, 2019;
Ravindra et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020). Moreover, the NELM posits that the decision to migrate is not a unilateral
one, but a family decision to improve the socioeconomic conditions and well-being of those left behind in the coun-
try of origin (Stark & Bloom, 1985). Remittances are, therefore, one of the spinoffs of migration, designed to improve
the living conditions of recipient households. Thus, remittances constitute a source of income that helps to reduce
market constraints and facilitate the energy transition for recipient households. Migration is also seen as a transfer
of knowledge. With this in mind, resilience to access and shocks from clean fuels can be enhanced by knowledge of
other contexts (Maller, 2011). In this way, migrants can pass on the importance of using clean energy and modern
cooking methods to their families back home (Scott et al., 2018; Sulthana, 2015).

2.2 | Empirical review

The concern for environmental sustainability has prompted an upsurge to research on the determinants of environ-
mental pollution and ways of tackling it. The number of premature deaths caused by air pollution is increasing in
developing countries, especially in Africa. As a result of this, several studies have focused on these determinants with
reference to nuclear energy (Azam et al., 2023), natural resources and the mitigating role of green energy and remit-
tances (Liu et al., 2022), economic complexity (Hassan et al., 2023; Ntang et al., 2023), and urbanization (Awan
et al., 2022). To reduce environmental pollution, several countries have turned to the use of clean energies and bio-
gas facilities (Ahmad et al., 2023; Ali et al., 2023), introduction of environmental tax (Liu et al., 2023), and promotion
of clean cooking fuels for households. However, to achieve goal 7 of the SDGs, income is a crucial element
(Leach, 1992) and migration through remittances can help achieve this goal (Scott et al., 2018).
The literature on the relationship between migrant remittances and access to modern energy services focused
more on the micro level than on the macro level. At the micro level, Hassan (2020) shows that remittances affect
rural households' choice of gas as a cooking fuel more than other alternative sources in southern Bangladesh. More-
over, a 10% growth in migrant remittances increases the probability of gas use by 2% in the country.
Empirical work on the determinants of household energy consumption has highlighted several determinants
ranging from income to social and demographic factors. The “energy ladder hypothesis” places income as a
4 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

determinant that explains the effect of the energy transition from traditional (biomass) to modern energy such as
domestic gas, oil, or electricity (Barnes et al., 2005; Leach, 1992). Other determinants range from social and demo-
graphic factors such as education, household size, age of the head of household, type of shelter and its ownership
status, location of the house, and distance from the forest (Gupta & Kohlin, 2006; Heltberg, 2005; Rehfuess
et al., 2010). Other determinants such as local cooking habits and frequency of cooking (Ouedraogo, 2006), ethnicity
(Heltberg, 2005), local traditions, and institutions (Hiemstra-Van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008) also affect the demand
for energy. In addition, gender and the position of women in the household are considered as key factors in the
energy choice decision of the household (Heltberg, 2004; Rehfuess et al., 2010). Other potential determinants in
energy choice of the household depend on market availability and access to domestic gas and electricity
(Davis, 1998; Kebede et al., 2002).
However, economic factors are a key constraint in the energy transition from traditional (biomass) to clean, mod-
ern energy (Hassan, 2020). Furthermore, Edwards and Langpap (2005) show that the most critical constraint in the
adoption of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) is insufficient income. Similarly, Khandker et al. (2012) find that clean
energy adoption is prevalent among the urban-poor households despite the availability of and access to modern
energy such as LPG and electricity being higher in urban areas. These studies highlight the importance of income in
energy consumption and the transition to modern energy but do not specify which income is more significant
(Hassan, 2020). This paper contributes to the literature by showing that migrant remittances are an important source
in facilitating households' energy transition.
International migration at the microlevel can globally contribute to improved access to affordable modern energy
via migrant income growth and remittances (Scott et al., 2018). In addition, it is reported that migrant remittances
are used as financing for the use of various types of clean energy technologies in developing countries
(Mendelson, 2013). For example, in Haiti, the policy employed by ArcFinance targets migrant remittances in financing
clean energy in energy-poor households by increasing the shift away from dirty energy. In Ecuador, a clean energy
technology program deployed to increase rural energy access has been linked to a financial remittance mechanism
(IFAD, 2009). However, these different examples do not provide robust evidence of the relationship between
migrant remittances and clean energy use. Growth in household income from other sources of income, such as remit-
tances, may increase the substitution effect in the choice of energy types. And, to better protect their productive
capacity, households receiving remittances are more inclined to protecting their human capital and therefore
protecting themselves again from the harmful effects of dirty fuels by using more and more clean energy for cooking
(Hassan, 2020; Hosan et al., 2023).
In general, migrant remittances improve the welfare of recipient households by reducing poverty (Imran
et al., 2020), improving education and health statuses of households (Khraiche & Boudreau, 2020), reducing house-
holds' credit constraints (Mbaye, 2021), and increasing financial inclusion of households (Abba et al., 2021; Naceur
et al., 2020). Thus, increasing energy transition. Indeed, at the macroeconomic level, few studies investigated the role
of remittances on energy transition in developing countries, such as Shrestha and Kakinaka (2022) who show that
1% increase in remittances is associated with a 0.24% increase in the share of high-efficiency energy sources in resi-
dential energy consumption in the long run. While, according to Chen et al. (2023) remittances and energy prices
reduce energy consumption. However, no study to our knowledge has examined the relationship between migrant
remittances and clean cooking fuel access in a panel of African countries.

3 | M E TH O DO LO GY

3.1 | Techniques of data analysis

In our study, we use several methodologies ranging from fixed and random effects to 2SLS as robustness. The 2SLS
is used in this work to account for potential unobserved heterogeneity (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2020; Efobi
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 5

et al., 2019) and to take into account for potential endogeneity (Wen et al., 2023). Indeed, the 2SLS is used in the
analysis of structural equations and is an extension of the Least Ordinary Squares. Moreover, it is used when the
error term of the dependent variable is correlated with the explanatory variables.
At the start, we estimate the impact of remittances on clean cooking fuel by using fixed and random effect
regressions to test for individual heterogeneity within our sample. The model is presented in equation (1).

cleanfuelit ¼ β0 þ β1 remitit þ β2 Xit þ εit ð1Þ

Model 1 specified in equation (1) takes into account the direct effect of migrant remittances on clean cooking
fuel, with cleanfuelit representing clean fuel and technologies for cooking of country i at time t this measure is used
by Muntasir (2020). remit represents the remittances of migrants. X is the vector of control variables composed of
financial development captured by domestic credit provided by the financial sector (credit), urbanization (urb), human
capital (school), internet access (internet), institutional quality (institution), and trade openness (trade). εit is the
error term.
Model 2, on the other hand, takes into account the inverse effect between migrant remittances and clean
cooking fuel, with remit2 represent the squared of variable remit

cleanfuelit ¼ β0 þ β1 remitit þ β2 remit2it þ β3 Xit þ εit ð2Þ

Equation (3) presents the 2SLS model with instrumental variable on the direct effect of migrant remittances on
access to clean energy and cooking technologies.

X
5
cleanfuelit ¼ β0 þ β1 remitit þ ωh W h,i,tτ þ ηi þ εit ð3Þ
h¼1

W is the vector of control variables composed of financial development captured by domestic credit provided
by the financial sector (credit), urbanization (urb), human capital (school), Internet access (internet), institutional qual-
ity (institution) measured by the average of the six governance indicators, gross national income per capita (GNIPC),
trade openness (trade), and inflation (CPI). ηi is the country-specific effect and εit the error term.
Equation (4) takes into account whether or not there is an inverted-U relationship between migrant remittances
and access to clean fuel and technologies for cooking, with remit2 is the square of the variable remitthat measures
migrant remittances as a percentage of GDP.

X
5
cleanfuelit ¼ β0 þ β1 remitit þ β2 remit2it þ ωh W h,i,tτ þ ηi þ εit ð4Þ
h¼1

3.2 | Data and descriptives statistics

The study sample includes 45 African countries. The period of analysis runs from 2000 to 2020 due to the availability of
data. The selection of countries and the time period is mainly based on the availability of data, particularly the data avail-
ability on access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking and also remittances. The data are drawn from two second-
ary sources, including the World Development Indicator (WDI), 2023 and Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI), 2023.
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for our sample. The description of the variables is presented in Appen-
dix 2, the list of countries in our sample is given in Appendix 3 and the scatter plot between the average of access to
clean cooking fuel and migrant remittances is displayed in Appendix 4. The descriptive statistics show that on
6 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics.

Variable Obs. Mean SD Min Max

Cleanfuel 945 28.53307 34.5897 0.1 100
Remit 940 4.016988 5.97223 0 53.82618
Credit 915 22.75367 24.16946 0 142.422
Urb 945 41.47213 17.05594 8.246 90.092
School 903 47.60444 23.49234 0.25601 118.3538
Internet 927 13.39222 17.01036 0.0059021 84.12036
Institution 944 0.562917 0.5736914 1.853772 0.8757154
Trade 902 70.69462 37.88922 0.7568755 311.3541

Source: Authors'.

average, 28.53307% of households in our sample use clean fuel and technologies for cooking with a minimum of
0.1%. Furthermore, it is found that remittances contribute on average 4.016988% in our sample with a maximum of
53.82618% of GDP. However, we find that there is a large fluctuation in clean fuel and technologies for cooking
compared to remittances.
Appendix 4 shows that there may be a negative effect between migrant remittances and clean cooking fuel. We
have used the averages of the two variables. Appendix 5 presents the effects of remittances on clean cooking fuel
access in terms of correlation.

3.2.1 | Dependent variable

Following recent studies (Acheampong et al., 2023; Martey et al., 2022; Muntasir, 2020), we use access to clean
fuels and technologies for cooking (% of population) as proxy of energy transition. In fact, a third of the world's
population—over 2.5 billion people—have no access to clean cooking. This lack of access to clean cooking is a major
contributor to diseases and deaths for women and children in low- and middle-income countries. In SSA, for exam-
ple, access to clean cooking rose from 15% in 2015 to 17% in 2020. Despite this slow growth, access to clean
cooking remains a major concern in this region. In 2020, 940 million people in SSA lacked access to clean cooking
(IEA, 2022). This makes SSA the only region in the world where the number of people without access to clean
cooking continues to grow significantly.

3.2.2 | Variable of interest

Our variable of interest is migrant remittances as a percentage of GDP used in the works of Hassan (2020) and Scott
et al. (2018). According to goal 7.1 of the SDGs, migration can contribute to improving access to modern energy by
increasing the income of remittance recipients. Remittances are seen as a source of financing for the SDGs. To
achieve SDG 7, remittances, through their effect on poverty reduction and the reduction of income inequalities,
improve family wealth and the quality of life of recipient households.

3.2.3 | Control variables

The control variables used include financial development, urbanization, human capital, internet access, institutional
quality, and trade openness. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 7

Financial development
The work of Shahbaz et al. (2018) shows that financial development reduces clean energy consumption. While a 1%
increase in domestic credit reduces the share of clean energy consumption in total energy usage by 0.139%–
0.237%. For some authors, access to credit boosts household income levels and therefore enables the energy transi-
tion (Anton & Nucu, 2020; Sadorsky, 2010). The expected sign is negative because the level of financial development
in Africa is low (Gelbard et al., 2014).

Urbanization
The energy transition can be explained by the remoteness and dispersion of the population between rural and urban
areas, which have different difficulties in accessing clean energy (Aung et al., 2022). Thus, urban areas have fewer
difficulties in obtaining clean cooking facilities than rural areas. As a result, advanced urbanization leads households
to use modern energies, compared to rural areas, which are able to obtain traditional energies (e.g., biomass, wood,
and charcoal) at low cost. Therefore, rapid urbanization is accompanied by a general transition from the use of solid
fuels to clean energy (Shari et al., 2022).

Human capital
Human capital is an important element in the energy transition, as it helps promote environmentally protective
behaviors. In addition, high human capital increases income levels, thereby reducing inequality (Lee & Lee, 2018).
Thus, human capital can increase access to clean cooking fuel (Ali et al., 2019) and thus facilitate the energy transi-
tion (Wiredu et al., 2023).

Internet access
It is believed that information communication technologies (ICT) can ensure access and employment of relatively
cleaner cooking fuels (Murshed, 2020). The technological constraint has been considered a bottleneck to the energy
transition from biomass use to modern cooking processes (Schunder & Bagchi-Sen, 2019). The work of Acharya and
Marhold (2019) in household cooking fuel consumption in Nepal shows that the use of ICT ensures the transition
from the use of conventional firewood and kerosene fuels for cooking purposes to greater use of comparatively
cleaner alternatives like liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity. The expected sign is positive as specified in the
works of Yasmin and Grundmann (2019) and Kumar and Igdalsky (2019).

Institutional quality
Several determinants ranging from income, socioeconomic and demographic factors, and non-cost factors such as
local tradition and institutions affect energy demand (Hiemstra-Van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008). The quality of insti-
tutions can affect household access to clean cooking fuels. The expected sign is positive.

Trade openness
The work of Murshed (2020) poses the problem of the effect of trade openness on the energy transition in 71 coun-
tries with different income levels in regions such as South Asia, East Asia, Pacific, Central Asia, Latin America, Carib-
bean islands, and SAA. The results reveal that there is a long-term relationship between trade liberalization policies
and the energy transition. Moreover, greater trade openness facilitates the energy transition in low-income countries
and prolongs the transition periods in the lower- and upper-middle-income countries. The international trade theory
developed by Heckscher and Ohlin (1933) is the best place to explain the role of trade openness in the energy transi-
tion. Indeed, this theory takes into account the disparity in factor endowments and input costs between countries.
Thus, taking into account the comparative advantage, it is wise for a country to specialize in the good or service
where it has a comparative advantage in terms of production cost and factor endowment. In the same vein, some
countries are naturally deprived of sufficient supply of indigenous renewable energy resources, whereby the imple-
mentation of proper trade liberalization policies could be ideal in importing renewable energy from abroad. According
8 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

TABLE 2 Correlation matrix.

Cleanfuel Remit Credit Urb School Internet Institution

Cleanfuel 1.0000
Remit 0.0116 1.0000
Credit 0.6246 0.0245 1.0000
Urb 0.5942 0.0840 0.3307 1.0000
School 0.7487 0.0547 0.6702 0.5470 1.0000
Internet 0.6084 0.0311 0.5379 0.4663 0.6431 1.0000
Institution 0.4641 0.0178 0.5546 0.2257 0.4868 0.3643 1.0000

Source: Authors'.

to Muntasir (2020), this particular trade theory can be tapped to criticize the imposition of unnecessary trade barriers
that impede renewable energy flows across national boundaries.
Table 2 presents the correlation matrix between the different variables in our sample. It shows that there is a
negative correlation between migrant remittances and clean fuel and technologies for cooking.

4 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 | Baseline results

Tables 3 and 4 present preliminary estimates for the fixed and random effect models, respectively. We consider both
models as specified in the methodology. Overall,2 it appears that remittances reduce access to clean cooking fuel on
the one hand and on the other hand, there is an inverse effect in this relationship. This shows us that the growth of
remittances can increase household access to clean cooking fuel in Africa. The results of the fixed and random effect
models are globally significant and the Hausman tests allow us to choose the fixed effect model.
Taking into account Model 1, we find that migrant remittances reduce access to clean energy and cooking tech-
nologies in Africa. This can be explained by the fact that migrant remittances are used for household consumption
and moreover by the fact that they are likely to be used for leisure by reducing labor supply (Amuedo-Dorantes &
Pozo, 2006). Indeed, remittances are used for leisure by decreasing the time spent on working and increasing the
consumption of imported goods. Moreover, this result can be explained by the share of the informal circuit in remit-
tances in Africa, but also by the availability of clean cooking fuel (e.g., the availability of LPG). This result can also be
attributed to the lack of policy support for household access to clean cooking fuel and market constraints. However,
there is an inverse relationship between remittances and clean fuel. Thus, an increase in migrant remittances has a
positive effect on access to clean energy, meaning that migrant remittances can affect the level of household energy
use (Scott et al., 2018). Therefore, it shows that migrant remittances improve the welfare of recipient households
through energy consumption and the transition to clean energy. Indeed, migrant remittances are considered a source
of income for recipient households and income plays a key role in the energy transition (Amuedo-Dorantes &
Pozo, 2011). This study shows that the growth of migrant remittances increases access to clean fuel and technolo-
gies for cooking in Africa. This is consistent with the findings of Gong (2011) where migrant remittances reduce fuel-
wood consumption in the communities of origin of Chinese migrants. Furthermore, the work of Akcay and Demirtas
(2015) in Morocco shows that migrant remittances are used for short and long-term energy consumption and indi-
rectly influence the process of growth and industrialization. Therefore, for African countries to have an energy transi-
tion for households, recipient countries should strengthen the flow of remittances by improving the financial sector.
TABLE 3 Fixed effects regressions.

Fixed effects regressions

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Remit 0.271*** 0.278*** 0.284*** 0.248*** 0.241*** 0.242*** 0.109* 0.0984 0.289***
ABBA YADOU ET AL.

(0.0576) (0.0488) (0.0472) (0.0434) (0.0442) (0.0443) (0.0573) (0.0850) (0.108)

Remit2 0.00339** 0.00750**
(0.00171) (0.00382)
Urb 0.730*** 0.591*** 0.283*** 0.284*** 0.274*** 0.334*** 0.265*** 0.341***
(0.0388) (0.0503) (0.0542) (0.0600) (0.0607) (0.0618) (0.0607) (0.0618)
School 0.0606*** 0.0236* 0.0153 0.0165 0.0107 0.0102 0.0153
(0.0151) (0.0141) (0.0147) (0.0147) (0.0152) (0.0151) (0.0153)
Internet 0.133*** 0.163*** 0.163*** 0.148*** 0.164*** 0.149***
(0.0126) (0.0145) (0.0145) (0.0147) (0.0145) (0.0147)
Bank 0.0179 0.0136 0.00516 0.0117 0.00746
(0.0206) (0.0210) (0.0215) (0.0209) (0.0215)
Institution 0.903 0.991 0.777 1.070
(0.761) (0.763) (0.762) (0.762)
Trade 0.0405*** 0.0404***
(0.00727) (0.00725)
Constant 29.77*** 0.584 2.478 15.15*** 15.70*** 15.44*** 16.55*** 15.77*** 16.44***
(0.276) (1.631) (1.737) (1.978) (2.150) (2.159) (2.252) (2.161) (2.248)
Observations 940 940 898 882 810 809 775 809 775
R2 0.024 0.301 0.319 0.410 0.410 0.409 0.412 0.412 0.415
Countries 45 45 45 45 45 45 43 45 43
Fisher test 22.17*** 192.3*** 132.5*** 144.7*** 105.5*** 87.38*** 72.50*** 75.74*** 64.17***
Hausman 114.05*** 160.43*** 121.25*** 158.74***

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

Source: Authors'.
9

***p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .1.

 10

TABLE 4 Random effects regressions.

Random effects regressions

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Remit 0.271*** 0.277*** 0.280*** 0.245*** 0.241*** 0.242*** 0.117* 0.123 0.327***
(0.0575) (0.0487) (0.0482) (0.0462) (0.0471) (0.0474) (0.0635) (0.0912) (0.120)
Remit2 0.00284 0.00877**
(0.00185) (0.00425)
Urb 0.741*** 0.611*** 0.360*** 0.365*** 0.367*** 0.466*** 0.363*** 0.470***
(0.0384) (0.0501) (0.0547) (0.0601) (0.0607) (0.0629) (0.0608) (0.0628)
School 0.0634*** 0.0270* 0.0163 0.0164 0.0137 0.0110 0.0190
(0.0154) (0.0150) (0.0156) (0.0157) (0.0168) (0.0162) (0.0170)
Internet 0.122*** 0.149*** 0.149*** 0.129*** 0.149*** 0.130***
(0.0132) (0.0153) (0.0154) (0.0161) (0.0154) (0.0160)
Bank 0.00757 0.00699 0.00327 0.00526 0.000675
(0.0219) (0.0223) (0.0238) (0.0224) (0.0237)
Institution 0.0390 0.203 0.105 0.0876
(0.805) (0.836) (0.810) (0.834)
Trade 0.0364*** 0.0364***
(0.00808) (0.00805)
Constant 29.62*** 1.105 1.147 11.50*** 11.77*** 11.67*** 11.27*** 11.78*** 11.25***
(5.228) (4.567) (3.519) (3.154) (3.284) (3.285) (3.177) (3.256) (3.178)
Observations 940 940 898 882 810 809 775 809 775
R2 0.000204 0.337 0.405 0.484 0.471 0.471 0.482 0.472 0.485
Countries 45 45 45 45 45 45 43 45 43
χ2 22.17*** 402.7*** 415.5*** 552.5*** 502.0*** 496.5*** 463.9*** 498.0*** 470.7***

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

Source: Authors'.
***p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .1.
ABBA YADOU ET AL.
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 11

Moreover, this result on the link between remittances and access to clean cooking fuel varies with the level of
economic development by taking into account the level of income. Table 5 shows that in low-income countries,
remittances reduce access to clean cooking fuel, but this effect is reversed in low- and middle-income countries as
demonstrated in the work of Murshed (2020). The result obtained in low-income countries can be attributed to two
major determinants. The first refers to the fact that remittances are more understood as a way for recipients to be
able to consume and therefore to have an emergency income that can help them face other difficulties in terms of
food than in terms of human capital. The second determinant may also be due to the availability of clean cooking fuel
in these countries.
Financial development, on the one hand, increases access to clean fuel in our sample. Indeed, financial develop-
ment can be a driver of access to clean cooking fuel because financial development reduces the liquidity constraint
in the acquisition of modern kitchens by granting credit. On the other hand, financial development reduces energy
transition in Africa but has not significant. The works of Mohsin et al. (2022) in Latin America show that increases in
energy poverty are attributed to low levels of financial development. Thus, increase in financial development is asso-
ciated with energy transition. In the same vein, Nguyen et al. (2021) demonstrated that financial development can
alleviate energy poverty and then energy transition by affecting energy demand (Sadorsky, 2010).
Urbanization plays a key role in access to clean cooking fuels insofar as the availability of LPG and other clean
cooking fuels is more available in urban markets than in rural markets, which are more isolated and where the cost of
LPG, for example, will be too high in rural areas than in urban areas. Therefore, urbanization allows for the accessibil-
ity and availability of these clean energies for household cooking. It is recognized that urbanization is a major demo-
graphic factor that affect energy demand (Pachauri, 2012). The investigation of Ali (2021) demonstrates that
urbanization has a positive effect on total energy consumption in SSA. Therefore, it increased the demand for energy
and the improvement of energy consumption structure (Wang, 2014).
Human capital plays an important role in access to clean fuels as more educated householders know the benefits
of having a type of cooking and make a trade-off between the different means at their disposal. Indeed, human capi-
tal is a factor that drives higher income (Shahbaz et al., 2022) and thus improves the energy transition from solid
fuels to clean energy.
It has been shown that ICT can be tapped to enhance access and employment of relatively cleaner cooking fuels
(Muntasir, 2020). In a study on the household cooking fuel consumption in Nepal, Acharya and Marhold (2019)
claimed that the use of ICT applications ensured the transition from the use of conventional firewood and kerosene
fuels for cooking purposes to greater use of comparatively cleaner alternatives like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
and electricity. As in our study, access to the internet has a positive and significant effect on access to clean fuel and
technologies for cooking in our sample. This supports the results of previous work such as Evans et al. (2017), Yasmin
and Grundmann (2019), Kumar and Igdalsky (2019), and Muntasir (2020). Indeed, ICTs play a mediating role in the
energy transition and the choice of cleaner cooking processes by providing information on the benefits of using
modern clean cooking fuels.
The quality of the institutions increases the access to clean fuel. Indeed, the quality of institutions here repre-
sents the average of the six governance indicators. The quality of institutions allows for the implementation of poli-
cies to promote clean cooking fuels and their availability to households. The quality of institutions in African
countries can boost the use of clean cooking fuels. This effect is negative but not significant in our sample. Indeed,
the institutional quality increases energy efficiency (Sun et al., 2019), but in our sample, this can be justified by the
weakness of institutions in African countries.
Trade openness has a negative effect on access to clean cooking fuels in our sample. This result contrasts with
the findings of Murshed (2020) who reported that the effectiveness of trade openness facilitates energy transition
only in low-income countries, while prolonging the transition periods in the lower- and upper-middle-income coun-
tries. These results reveal that the effect of trade openness has different effects between income groups of
countries. Our result is in line with recent findings of Murshed (2018, 2020).
 12

TABLE 5 Estimation with subdivision of level of country income.

Fixed effect (FE) Random effect (RE)

LIC LMIC UMIC LIC LMIC UMIC LIC LMIC UMIC LIC LMIC UMIC

Variables Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel Cleanfuel
Remit 0.235*** 0.230*** 0.646 1.293*** 0.317*** 1.636 0.211*** 0.224*** 5.774** 1.296*** 0.321*** 13.32*
(0.0739) (0.0532) (0.474) (0.180) (0.114) (1.542) (0.0738) (0.0551) (2.915) (0.179) (0.118) (7.987)
Remit2 0.0490*** 0.0109*** 0.351 0.0502*** 0.0109*** 6.789**
(0.00767) (0.00203) (0.520) (0.00764) (0.00210) (2.653)
Urb 0.513*** 0.185* 0.882*** 0.368*** 0.145 0.868*** 0.242*** 0.219** 0.405** 0.158* 0.182* 0.272
(0.121) (0.0964) (0.0979) (0.116) (0.0934) (0.100) (0.0886) (0.0960) (0.189) (0.0871) (0.0931) (0.192)
School 0.0729** 0.0770*** 0.117*** 0.0979*** 0.0500** 0.123*** 0.0518* 0.0773*** 0.307** 0.0820*** 0.0495** 0.397***
(0.0285) (0.0247) (0.0267) (0.0271) (0.0244) (0.0285) (0.0277) (0.0254) (0.135) (0.0264) (0.0251) (0.136)
Internet 0.250*** 0.0988*** 0.0275 0.250*** 0.109*** 0.0317 0.199*** 0.0937*** 0.395*** 0.210*** 0.104*** 0.486***
(0.0436) (0.0189) (0.0227) (0.0410) (0.0183) (0.0236) (0.0407) (0.0195) (0.0883) (0.0384) (0.0189) (0.0933)
Credit 0.136*** 0.00727 0.0965** 0.113** 0.000589 0.101** 0.0863* 0.00299 0.0223 0.0766 0.00244 0.126
(0.0518) (0.0275) (0.0432) (0.0489) (0.0265) (0.0439) (0.0497) (0.0284) (0.103) (0.0468) (0.0274) (0.116)
Institution 2.318*** 1.202 18.92*** 2.415*** 2.943** 18.52*** 1.735** 1.338 4.243 1.961** 3.029** 6.813
(0.858) (1.379) (2.835) (0.807) (1.370) (2.904) (0.819) (1.422) (5.865) (0.772) (1.410) (5.814)
Constant 12.07*** 24.85*** 16.52** 9.277*** 26.81*** 16.67*** 6.056** 23.06*** 12.36 4.743* 24.92*** 21.30
(2.880) (3.747) (6.327) (2.745) (3.637) (6.347) (2.554) (5.824) (15.44) (2.509) (5.797) (15.48)
Observations 331 408 121 331 408 121 331 408 121 331 408 121
R2 0.199 0.431 0.817 0.293 0.471 0.818 0.00159 0.388 0.787 0.00435 0.461 0.822
Countries 18 21 6 18 21 6 18 21 6 18 21 6
Fisher test/ 12.72*** 48.20*** 81.00*** 18.14*** 48.40*** 69.14*** 65.22*** 276.3*** 76.09*** 118.2*** 323.3*** 86.34***
χ2
Hausman 13.66** 36.32*** 111.41*** 11.94*** 35.74*** 110.29***

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

Abbreviations: LIC, low-income countries; LMIC, lower and middle-income countries; UMIC, upper and middle-income countries.
ABBA YADOU ET AL.

Source: Authors'.
***p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .1.
TABLE 6 2SLS with instrumental variable.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Remit 3.626*** 2.942** 2.988** 4.985*** 4.443*** 3.472*** 3.501*** 6.495***
(1.131) (1.222) (1.261) (1.704) (1.031) (1.065) (1.095) (1.662)
ABBA YADOU ET AL.

Remit2 0.114*** 0.0950*** 0.0937*** 0.263***

(0.0256) (0.0257) (0.0258) (0.0610)
Urb 0.329*** 0.229*** 0.219*** 0.407*** 0.522*** 0.372*** 0.365*** 0.521***
(0.106) (0.0775) (0.0785) (0.0785) (0.0591) (0.0537) (0.0545) (0.0646)
School 0.642*** 0.458*** 0.478*** 0.623*** 0.558*** 0.348*** 0.362*** 0.375***
(0.0920) (0.131) (0.134) (0.156) (0.0596) (0.0751) (0.0763) (0.0761)
Internet 0.339*** 0.179 0.319** 0.510*** 0.355*** 0.158** 0.231** 0.358***
(0.100) (0.111) (0.148) (0.176) (0.0759) (0.0805) (0.0956) (0.110)
Credit 0.359*** 0.380*** 0.297*** 0.407*** 0.550*** 0.545*** 0.507*** 0.589***
(0.0939) (0.0856) (0.108) (0.0879) (0.0639) (0.0566) (0.0586) (0.0690)
Institution 3.632 2.088 0.639 2.422 2.372 8.340*** 7.709*** 7.499***
(2.279) (2.954) (3.605) (2.791) (2.101) (1.639) (1.723) (1.922)
GNIPC 0.00237*** 0.00221** 0.000269 0.00287*** 0.00276*** 0.00181***
(0.000849) (0.000904) (0.00143) (0.000522) (0.000548) (0.000661)
CPI 0.0538** 0.0486** 0.0297* 0.0449**
(0.0246) (0.0240) (0.0159) (0.0182)
Trade 0.199** 0.0198
(0.0791) (0.0269)
Constant 10.74 13.77** 7.279 23.32*** 25.12*** 26.41*** 23.02*** 19.63***
(6.877) (6.893) (9.074) (5.083) (3.163) (2.848) (3.566) (4.300)
Observations 809 804 776 742 809 804 776 742

(Continues)
13
 (Continued)
14

TABLE 6

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
R2 0.290 0.455 0.463 0.401 0.598 0.689 0.692 0.643
χ2 770.6*** 1166*** 1143*** 1008*** 1363*** 2057*** 2005*** 1704***
Countries 45 45 45 43 45 45 45 43

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

Source: Authors'.
***p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .1.
ABBA YADOU ET AL.
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 15

TABLE 7 Remittances and clean cooking fuel taking into account the role of financial development.

Fixed effect regression

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Remit 0.238*** 0.285*** 0.233*** 0.296*** 0.234*** 0.283***
(0.0447) (0.0539) (0.0447) (0.0531) (0.0446) (0.0529)
Credit 0.0112 0.0392
(0.0215) (0.0281)
Remit * Credit 0.00392
(0.00253)
Bank 0.00395 0.0446
(0.0220) (0.0287)
Remit * Bank 0.00548**
(0.00249)
Private 0.0115 0.0395
(0.0198) (0.0256)
Remit * Private 0.00414*
(0.00242)
Urb 0.272*** 0.281*** 0.264*** 0.283*** 0.268*** 0.281***
(0.0620) (0.0622) (0.0622) (0.0627) (0.0614) (0.0618)
School 0.0157 0.0171 0.0224 0.0239 0.0206 0.0219
(0.0148) (0.0148) (0.0148) (0.0148) (0.0149) (0.0149)
Internet 0.171*** 0.168*** 0.148*** 0.143*** 0.151*** 0.147***
(0.0177) (0.0178) (0.0156) (0.0157) (0.0156) (0.0158)
Institution 0.805 0.766 0.638 0.555 0.576 0.534
(0.782) (0.781) (0.766) (0.765) (0.762) (0.761)
GNIPC 0.000131 7.45e-05 0.000155 8.50e-05 7.57e-05 2.22e-05
(0.000178) (0.000181) (0.000163) (0.000166) (0.000167) (0.000170)
Constant 15.93*** 15.73*** 16.51*** 16.06*** 16.04*** 15.74***
(2.388) (2.389) (2.358) (2.361) (2.338) (2.342)
Observations 804 804 847 847 843 843
R2 0.410 0.411 0.403 0.406 0.407 0.410
Countries 45 45 45 45 45 45
Fisher test 74.53*** 65.63*** 76.56*** 67.92*** 77.68*** 68.50***
Hausman 126.37*** 164.67*** 132.50*** 163.73*** 121.55*** 175.77***

Random effects regression

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Remit 0.254*** 0.319*** 0.250*** 0.329*** 0.251*** 0.314***
(0.0486) (0.0597) (0.0487) (0.0586) (0.0484) (0.0589)
Credit 0.0178 0.0548*
(0.0232) (0.0307)
Remit * 0.00525*
Credit (0.00282)

(Continues)
16 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

TABLE 7 (Continued)

Random effects regression

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bank 0.0101 0.0586*
(0.0237) (0.0311)
Remit * Bank 0.00670**
(0.00275)
Private 0.0118 0.0439
(0.0212) (0.0278)
Remit * Private 0.00507*
(0.00268)
Urb 0.403*** 0.430*** 0.403*** 0.433*** 0.397*** 0.433***
(0.0616) (0.0617) (0.0614) (0.0616) (0.0608) (0.0610)
School 0.0171 0.0199 0.0228 0.0255 0.0198 0.0220
(0.0161) (0.0164) (0.0161) (0.0163) (0.0161) (0.0165)
Internet 0.119*** 0.107*** 0.102*** 0.0915*** 0.106*** 0.0921***
(0.0185) (0.0187) (0.0163) (0.0165) (0.0163) (0.0167)
Institution 0.0301 0.222 0.216 0.407 0.228 0.452
(0.842) (0.856) (0.825) (0.834) (0.819) (0.836)
GNIPC 0.000509*** 0.000699*** 0.000432** 0.000588*** 0.000507*** 0.000708***
(0.000183) (0.000189) (0.000170) (0.000173) (0.000173) (0.000178)
Constant 8.390*** 7.106** 8.494*** 7.360** 8.535*** 6.836**
(3.230) (3.106) (3.171) (3.079) (3.180) (3.031)
Observations 804 804 847 847 843 843
2
R 0.562 0.573 0.566 0.567 0.576 0.588
χ2 496.2*** 498.4*** 509.8*** 516.6*** 520.0*** 522.2***
Countries 45 45 45 45 45 45

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

Source: Authors'.
***p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .1.

4.2 | Robustness checks

To test the robustness of our base results, we first use additional control variables and instrumental variable
approach; and second, we investigate the transmission channel.

4.2.1 | Additional control variables and instrumental-variable approach

We check whether the results are robust to controlling for potential omissions, we include additional variables such
as inflation, trade openness, and national income per capita (Gross national income per capita). In addition, we adopt
an instrumental variable approach to further address the endogeneity issue. The outcomes are reported in Table 6. It
appears that income level increases access to clean cooking fuel in Africa overall as shown by the different results
from columns 1–8 in Table 6. However, inflation has a negative effect on access to clean cooking fuel in our sample.
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 17

The results of the 2SLS with instrumental variable support our previous results. Furthermore, the results reveal that
the level of inflation is a constraint on access to clean cooking fuel in Africa, while trade openness has a positive and
significant effect on the dependent variable. The results corroborate those of Muntasir (2020).

4.2.2 | The transmission channel

It is argued that financial development remains an important channel through which remittances could affect energy
transmission. Therefore, we conduct further analysis by examining the impact of the interaction between remit-
tances and financial development on energy transition in Africa, by considering three proxies of financial develop-
ment such as aggregate domestic credit, bank, and private sector credit. The results are presented in Table 7.
The outcomes of Table 7 show that the different financial development variables have a negative effect on the
energy transition captured by access to clean cooking fuel. This may be due to the fact that the current level of financial
development in African countries does not allow for financing the energy transition to cleaner and less polluting
resources. However, it is clear that financial development can serve as a channel through which remittances increase
the energy transition in the countries in our sample. This is verified by considering several measures of financial develop-
ment defined in the economic literature. As defined by Yue et al. (2019), financial development positively affects energy
consumption and furthermore, it has been shown in several works on the effect of remittances that financial develop-
ment plays a crucial if not determining role. Table 7 shows that remittances coupled with financial development increase
the energy transition in African countries. Thus, in order to achieve goal 7.1 of the United Nations SDGs, it would be
useful for African countries to develop the financial sector in order to benefit from the effects of migrant remittances.

5 | C O N C L U S I O N A ND P O LI C Y I M P L I C A T I O N S

The objective of this paper was to examine the relationship between migrant remittances and access to clean fuel
and technologies for cooking in 45 African countries for the period 2000 to 2020. The results show that migrant
remittances in the first instance reduce the effect on access for clean fuel and technologies for cooking. In the sec-
ond step, there is an inverse relationship between remittances and access for clean fuel and technologies for
cooking. Moreover, taking into account the level of development of the countries, it appears that remittances
increase the energy transition in low- and middle-income and upper and middle-income countries as opposed to
low-income countries. However, financial development can boost the effect of remittances on the energy transition
in Africa. In addition, urbanization and human capital have a positive effect on the energy transition, but institutions
and trade openness are a bottleneck. Thus, in order to better increase access for clean fuel and technologies for
cooking and thus reduce pollution and environmental degradation, African countries need to emphasize developed
financial systems in order to better benefit from migrant remittances. It would also be useful to increase human capi-
tal and urbanization in the countries in our sample while taking into account improvements in the quality of institu-
tions and trade openness more oriented toward goods that can facilitate an energy transition. It will be beneficial to
facilitate investment of remittances through biogas.
The main limitation of this study is that it does not take into account the effect of landlocked countries and
countries that have received funding to achieve SDG 7. In addition, we have not taken employment vulnerability into
account. In order to understand the determinants of the energy transition in Africa, it would be important to consider
these variables in our future investigation.

ORCID
Barnabe Abba Yadou https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0493-4025
Philemon Bonaventure Ntang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6384-7431
18 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

ENDNOTES
1
“Migration can help improve access to affordable, reliable modern energy services. (…). Cash and in-kind remittances may
be used to enhance access to modern energy services in migrants' places of origin.” (Scott et al., 2018).
2
This is derived from the estimates of the fixed and random effect model results ranging from 1 to 7. The results of the esti-
mates ranging from 8 to 9 add trade openness as used in the work of Murshed (2020) in 43 countries due to missing data
for countries such as Ethiopia and Sao Tome and Principe.

RE FE R ENC E S
Abba, Y. B., Ningaye, P., & Bangake, C. (2021). Do remittances spur financial inclusion in Africa? A multi-dimensional
approach. Economics Bulletin, 41(2), 328–341.
Acharya, B., & Marhold, K. (2019). Determinants of household energy use and fuel switching behavior in Nepal. Energy, 169,
1132–1138.
Acheampong, A. O., Opoku, E. E. O., & Dogah, K. E. (2023). The political economy of energy transition: The role of globaliza-
tion and governance in the adoption of clean cooking fuels and technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 186, 122156.
Ahmad, M., Khan, I., Khan, M. Q. S., Jabeen, G., Jabeen, H. S., & Işık, C. (2023). Households' perception-based factors
influencing biogas adoption: Innovation diffusion framework. Energy, 263, 126155.
Akcay, S., & Demirtas, G. (2015). Remittances and energy consumption: Evidence from Morocco. International Migration,
53(6), 125–144.
Ali, A., Mottaleb, K. A., & Aryal, J. P. (2019). Wealth, education and cooking-fuel choices among rural households in Pakistan.
Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 236–243.
Ali, M. (2021). Urbanisation and energy consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Electricity Journal, 34(10), 107045.
Ali, S., Yan, Q., Razzaq, A., Khan, I., & Irfan, M. (2023). Modeling factors of biogas technology adoption: A roadmap towards
environmental sustainability and green revolution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(5), 11838–11860.
Amoah, S. T. (2019). Determinants of household's choice of cooking energy in a global south city. Energy and Buildings, 196,
103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.026
Amuedo-Dorantes & Pozo, S. (2011). Remittances and income smoothing. American Economic Review, 101(3), 582–587.
Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Pozo, S. (2006). Migration, remittances, and male and female employment patterns. American
Economic Review, 96(2), 222–226.
Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Pozo, S. (2011). Remittances and income. American Economic Review, 101(3), 582–587.
Anton, S. G., & Nucu, A. E. A. (2020). The effect of financial development on renewable energy consumption: A panel data
approach. Renewable Energy, 147, 330–338.
Asongu, S. A., & Odhiambo, N. M. (2020). Remittances, the diffusion of information and industrialisation in Africa. Contempo-
rary Social Science, 15(1), 98–117.
Aung, T., Jagger, P., Hlaing, K. T., Han, K. K., & Kobayashi, W. (2022). City living but still energy poor: Household energy tran-
sitions under rapid urbanization in Myanmar. Energy Research & Social Science, 85, 102432.
Awan, A., Sadiq, M., Hassan, S. T., Khan, I., & Khan, N. H. (2022). Combined nonlinear effects of urbanization and economic
growth on CO2 emissions in Malaysia. An application of QARDL and KRLS. Urban Climate, 46, 101342.
Azam, W., Khan, I., & Ali, S. A. (2023). Alternative energy and natural resources in determining environmental sustainability:
A look at the role of government final consumption expenditures in France. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
30(1), 1949–1965.
Barnes, D. F., Krutilla, K., & Hyde, W. (2005). The urban household energy transition. Resources for the Future Press.
Chen, Y., Raza, K., & Alharthi, M. (2023). The nexus between remittances, education, and energy consumption: Evidence
from developing countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 46, 101069.
Davis, M. (1998). Rural household energy consumption: The effects to access to electricity-evidence from South Africa.
Energy Policy, 26(3), 207–217.
Edwards, J. H., & Langpap, C. (2005). Startup costs and the decision to switch from firewood to gas fuel. Land Economics,
81(4), 570–586.
Efobi, U., Asongu, S., Okafor, C., Tchamyou, V., & Tanankem, B. (2019). Remittances, finance and industrialisation in Africa.
Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 49, 54–66.
Evans, W., Johnson, M., Jagoe, K., Charron, D., Young, B., Rahman, A. S. M. M., Omolloh, D., & Ipe, J. (2017). Evaluation of
behavior change communication campaigns to promote modern cookstove purchase and use in lower-middle-income
countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(1), 11.
Foresti, M., & Hagen-Zanker, J. (2017). Migration and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Executive summary. Over-
seas Development Institute.
Gelbard, E., Gulde, A. M., & Maino, R. (2014). Développement financier en Afrique subsaharienne: les enjeux pour une
croissance soutenue. Revue d'Economie Financière, 4, 19–42.
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 19

Gong, Y. (2011). Does labour out-migration reduce firewood consumption? Presentation to International Seminar on Inter-
nal Migration and Urbanization and Their Socioeconomic Impacts in Developing Countries: Challenges and Policy
Responses, Fuzhou, China, 10–12 December 2011. Paris: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.
http://archive.iussp.org/members/restricted/publications/Fuzhou11/Gong.pdf
Gupta, G., & Kohlin, G. (2006). Preferences for domestic fuel: Analysis with socio-economic factors and ranking in Kolkata,
India. Ecological Economics, 57(1), 107–121.
Hassan, G. M. (2020). Clean energy and household remittances in Bangladesh: Evidence from a natural experiment. Centre
for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis (CAMA) Working Paper 33/2020.
Hassan, S. T., Wang, P., Khan, I., & Zhu, B. (2023). The impact of economic complexity, technology advancements, and
nuclear energy consumption on the ecological footprint of the USA: Towards circular economy initiatives. Gondwana
Research, 113, 237–246.
Heltberg, R. (2004). Fuel switching: Evidence from eight developing countries. Energy Economics, 26(5), 869–887.
Heltberg, R. (2005). Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala. Environment and Development Economics,
10(3), 337–361.
Hiemstra-Van der Horst, G., & Hovorka, A. J. (2008). Reassessing the “energy ladder”: Household energy use in Maun,
Botswana. Energy Policy, 36(9), 3333–3344.
Hosan, S., Rahman, M. M., Karmaker, S. C., Chapman, A. J., & Saha, B. B. (2023). Remittances and multidimensional energy
poverty: Evidence from a household survey in Bangladesh. Energy, 262, 125326.
Hosier, R. H., & Dowd, J. (1987). Household fuel choice in Zimbabwe: An empirical test of the energy ladder hypothesis.
Resources and Energy, 9(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0572(87)90003-X
IEA. (2020). SDG7: Data and Projections, Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all, Flagship
report-October 2020.
IEA. (2022). SDG7: Data and projections. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/sdg7-data-and-projections
IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2009). Remittances: Sending money home. IFAD.
Imran, K., Devadason, E. S., & Kee Cheok, C. (2020). Foreign remittances and regional poverty: Evidence from household
data. International Migration, 58(4), 214–230.
Isnad. (2019). Cleaner cooking and its role in Africa's futures. https://isnad-africa.org/2019/02/04/cleaner-cooking-and-its-
role-in-africas-future/
Kebede, B., Bekele, A., & Kedir, E. (2002). Can the urban poor afford modern energy? The case of Ethiopia. Energy Policy,
30(11–12), 1029–1045.
Khandker, S. R., Barnes, D. F., & Samad, H. A. (2012). Are the energy poor also income poor? Evidence from India. Energy Pol-
icy, 47, 1–12.
Khraiche, M., & Boudreau, J. (2020). Can lower remittance costs improve human capital accumulation in Africa? Journal of
Policy Modeling, 42(5), 1000–1021.
Kumar, P., & Igdalsky, L. (2019). Sustained uptake of clean cooking practices in poor communities: Role of social networks.
Energy Research and Social Science, 48, 189–193.
Leach, G. (1992). The energy transitions. Energy Policy, 20(2), 116–123.
Lee, J. W., & Lee, H. (2018). Human capital and income inequality. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 23(4), 554–583.
Liu, H., Alharthi, M., Atil, A., Zafar, M. W., & Khan, I. (2022). A non-linear analysis of the impacts of natural resources and
education on environmental quality: Green energy and its role in the future. Resources Policy, 79, 102940.
Liu, H., Zafar, M. W., Sinha, A., & Khan, I. (2023). The path to sustainable environment: Do environmental taxes and gover-
nance matter? Sustainable Development, 31, 2278–2290.
Maller, C. (2011). Practices involving energy and water consumption in migrant households (pp. 237–250). CSIRO Publishing.
Martey, E., Etwire, P. M., Adusah-Poku, F., & Akoto, I. (2022). Off-farm work, cooking energy choice and time poverty in
Ghana: An empirical analysis. Energy Policy, 163, 112853.
Mbaye, L. M. (2021). Remittances and rural credit markets: Evidence from Senegal. Review of Development Economics, 25(1),
183–199.
Mendelson, S. (2013). Sustainable energy access for the poor. Americas Quaterly, 7(4), 26.
Mohsin, M., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., & Shabaz, M. (2022). Nexus between financial development and energy poverty in Latin
America. Energy Policy, 165, 112925.
Muntasir, M. (2020). An empirical analysis of the non-linear impacts of ICT-trade openness on renewable energy transition,
energy efficiency, clean cooking fuel access and environmental sustainability in South Asia. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 27, 36254–36281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09497-3
Murshed, M. (2018). Does improvement in trade openness facilitate renewable energy transition? Evidence from selected
south Asian economies. South Asia Economic Journal, 19(2), 151–170.
Murshed, M. (2020). Are trade liberalization policies aligned with renewable energy transition in low and middle income
countries? An instrumental variable approach. Renewable Energy, 151, 1110–1123.
Naceur, M. S. B., Chami, M. R., & Trabelsi, M. (2020). Do remittances enhance financial inclusion in LMICs and in fragile states?
International Monetary Fund.
20 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

Nguyen, C. P., Su, T. D., Bui, T. D., Dang, V. T. B., & Nguyen, B. Q. (2021). Financial development and energy poverty: Global
evidence. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 35188–35225.
Ntang, P. B., Baida, L. A., & Abba Yadou, B. (2023). How does economic complexity influence environmental degradation?
New insights from African countries. In Natural resources forum. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Ohlin, B. (1933). International and interregional trade. Harvard Economic Studies.
Ouedraogo, B. (2006). Household energy preferences for cooking in urban Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Energy Policy,
34(18), 3787–3795.
Pachauri, S. (2012). Demography, urbanisation and energy demand. In Energy for development: Resources, technologies, envi-
ronment (pp. 81–94). Springer Netherlands.
Pan, Z., Xu, W., Wang, G., Li, S., & Yang, C. (2020). Will remittances suppress or increase household income in the migrant-
sending areas? Modeling the effects of remittances in rural China. China Economic Review, 61, 101452.
Ravindra, K., Kaur-Sidhu, M., Mor, S., & John, S. (2019). Trend in household energy consumption pattern in India: A case
study on the influence of socio-cultural factors for the choice of clean fuel use. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213,
1024–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.092
Rehfuess, E. A., Briggs, D. J., Joffe, M., & Best, N. (2010). Bayesian modelling of household solid use: Insights towards
designing effective interventions to promote fuel switching in Africa. Environmental Research, 110(7), 725–732.
Sadorsky, P. (2010). The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy,
38(5), 2528–2535.
Schunder, T., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2019). Understanding the household cooking fuel transition. Geography Compass, 13(11),
e12469.
Scott, A., Worral, L., & Pickard, S. (2018). Energy, migration and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. ODI briefing
note. ODI.
Shahbaz, M., Destek, M. A., & Polemis, M. L. (2018). Do foreign capital and financial development affect clean energy con-
sumption and carbon emissions? Evidence from BRICS and Next-11 countries. SPOUDAI-Journal of Economics and Busi-
ness, 68(4), 20–50.
Shahbaz, M., Song, M., Ahmad, S., & Vo, X. V. (2022). Does economic growth stimulate energy consumption? The role of
human capital and R&D expenditures in China. Energy Economics, 105, 105662.
Shari, B. E., Dioha, M. O., Abraham-Dukuma, M. C., Sobanke, V. O., & Emodi, N. V. (2022). Clean cooking energy transition
in Nigeria: Policy implications for developing countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 44(2), 319–343.
Sharma, D., Ravindra, K., Kaur, M., Prinja, S., & Mor, S. (2020). Cost evaluation of different household fuels and identification
of the barriers for the choice of clean cooking fuels in India. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101825. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2019.101825
Shrestha, A., & Kakinaka, M. (2022). Remittance inflows and energy transition of the residential sector in developing coun-
tries. Sustainability, 14(17), 10547.
Stark, O., & Bloom, D. E. (1985). The new economics of labor migration. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 173–178.
www.jstor.org/stable/1805591
Sulthana, M. (2015). Do migrants transfer Tacic knowledge? The case of highly Bangladeshi immigrants in the United
Nations Northeastern University. Massachusset Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/33040
Sun, H., Edziah, B. K., Sun, C., & Kporsu, A. K. (2019). Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy
Policy, 135, 111002.
Wang, Q. (2014). Effects of urbanisation on energy consumption in China. Energy Policy, 65, 332–339.
Wen, J., Hong, L., Khalid, S., Mahmood, H., & Zakaria, M. (2023). Nexus between renewable energy consumption, foreign
capital flows, and financial development: New evidence using CUP-FM and CUP-BC advanced methods. Structural
Change and Economic Dynamics, 67, 82–88.
Wiredu, J., Yang, Q., Inuwa, U. L., & Sampene, A. K. (2023). Energy transition in Africa: The role of human capital, financial
development, economic development, and carbon emissions. Environmental Science & Policy, 146, 24–36.
World Bank. (2022). A war in a pandemic: Implications of the Ukraine crisis and COVID-19 on global governance of migra-
tion and remittances flows. Migration and Development Brief, 36, 82.
Yasmin, N., & Grundmann, P. (2019). Adoption and diffusion of renewable energy-the case of biogas as altenative fuel for
cooking in Pakistan. Renew Sust Energy Review, 101, 255–264.
Yue, S., Lu, R., Shen, Y., & Chen, H. (2019). How does financial development affect energy consumption? Evidence from
21 transitional countries. Energy Policy, 130, 253–262.

How to cite this article: Abba Yadou, B., Ntang, P. B., Tchio Tchieutsouah, R., & Abba Abam-Nde, V. (2023).
Do remittances align with energy transition in Africa? An approach with the level of income of countries.
Natural Resources Forum, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12333
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 21

APP E NDIX 1 : ACCESS TO CLEAN COOKING, SUMMARY BY REGION

Population relying
Population without
on traditional use
access
of biomass
Proportion of the population with
access to clean cooking (%) (millions)

2000 2005 2010 2015 2018 2018 2018

World 52 55 58 63 65 2651 2374
Developing Countries 37 41 45 53 56 2651 2374
Africa 23 25 26 28 29 910 853
North Africa 87 93 96 98 98 4 4
Sub-Saharan Africa 10 11 13 15 17 905 848
Developing Asia 33 37 43 53 57 1674 1460
China 47 51 55 67 72 399 242
India 22 28 34 44 49 688 681
Indonesia 12 18 40 68 68 85 55
Other Southeast Asia 36 42 48 54 58 164 163
Other Developing Asia 22 26 27 33 35 337 318
Central and South 78 82 85 88 89 57 53
America
Middle East 84 91 95 96 96 10 9

Source: IEA, World Energy Outlook-2019, based on WHO Household Energy Database and IEA World Energy
Balances 2019.
22 ABBA YADOU ET AL.

APP E NDIX 2 : DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIABLES

Variables Description Source

Cleanfuel Access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking (% of population) WDI
Remit Remittances as % GDP WDI
Credit Domestic credit provided by financial sector as % GDP WDI
Urb Logarithm of Urban population (% of total) WDI
School Gross school enrollment secondary WDI
Internet Individual Internet per 100 population WDI
Institution Mean of six variables of governance WGI
GNIPC Gross national income per capita WDI
CPI Consumer price index WDI
Institution Mean of six governance variables Authors
Trade Sum of export and import of goods and services as % GDP WDI

Source: Authors'.

APP E NDIX 3 : LIST OF SAMPLE.

Algeria Congo Dem rep Guinea Mauritius Seychelles

Angola Congo Republic Guinea-Bissau Morocco Sierra Leone
Benin Ivory Coast Kenya Mozambique South Africa
Botswana Egypt Lesotho Namibia Sudan
Burkina Faso Eswatini Liberia Niger Tanzania
Burundi Ethiopia Madagascar Nigeria Togo
Cabo Verde Gabon Malawi Rwanda Tunisia
Cameroon Gambia Mali Sao Tome and Principe Uganda
Comoros Ghana Mauritania Senegal Zimbabwe

Source: Authors'.
ABBA YADOU ET AL. 23

APP E NDIX 4 : SCATTER PLOT (REMITTANCES AND ACCESS TO CLEAN FUEL AND TECHNOLOGIES
FOR COOKING)
100

Tunisia
Morocco
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Mauritius
Algeria
Seychelles
80

South Africa
Gabon
Cabo Verde
60

Botswana

Angola
40

NamibiaEswatiniMauritania

Senegal Zimbabwe
Sudan Lesotho
20

Sao Tome and Principe

Cote Rep.
d'Ivoire
Congo,
Cameroon
Ghana
Kenya Faso
Burkina
Benin
Congo, Dem.
Mozambique Rep. TogoComoros
Ethiopia
Malawi
Tanzania
Niger
Guinea
Burundi
Sierra
Rwanda Guinea-Bissau Gambia,
Nigeria
Mali
Madagascar
Uganda
Leone
The
Liberia
0

0 10 20 30
remitme

cleanme Fitted values

Source: Authors'

APP E NDIX 5 : EFFECTS OF REMITTANCES TO CLEAN COOKING FUEL

25

20
y = -0.0107x + 4.6966

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-5

Source: Authors'