<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf8"?>
 <!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.0/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd"> <article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JAR</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Journal of Agronomy Research</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2639-3166</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Open Access Pub</publisher-name>
        <publisher-loc>United States</publisher-loc>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14302/issn.2639-3166.jar-21-4004</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JAR-21-4004</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>research-article</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>A Long-Term Polydromic Function to Disentangle Personal                            Remittance, Migration and Employment in Agriculture in Order to Raise the GDP of the Donor aid Ratio in Five African Countries </article-title>
        <alt-title alt-title-type="running-head">a polydromic function disentangles economic dynamics in five west african countries</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Ebrima</surname>
            <given-names>K. Ceesay</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842740884">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842739084">*</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Giorgio</surname>
            <given-names>Masoero</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842740668">2</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="idm1842740884">
        <label>1</label>
        <addr-line>University of Gambia, Banjul, Gambia. </addr-line>
      </aff>
      <aff id="idm1842740668">
        <label>2</label>
        <addr-line>Accademia di Agricoltura di Torino, Torino, Italy. </addr-line>
      </aff>
      <aff id="idm1842739084">
        <label>*</label>
        <addr-line>Corresponding author</addr-line>
      </aff>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="editor">
          <name>
            <surname>Abubaker</surname>
            <given-names>Haroun Mohamed Adam</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842865764">1</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="idm1842865764">
        <label>1</label>
        <addr-line>Department of Crop Science (Agronomy), College of Agriculture, Bahri University- Alkadaru- Khartoum -Sudan.</addr-line>
      </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <corresp>
    
    Ebrima K. Ceesay, <addr-line>University of Gambia, Banjul, Gambia.</addr-line><email>ceesayebrimak@utg.edu.gm</email></corresp>
        <fn fn-type="conflict" id="idm1843247412">
          <p>The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.</p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub" iso-8601-date="2021-11-25">
        <day>25</day>
        <month>11</month>
        <year>2021</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>4</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>26</fpage>
      <lpage>41</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>27</day>
          <month>10</month>
          <year>2021</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>22</day>
          <month>11</month>
          <year>2021</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="online">
          <day>25</day>
          <month>11</month>
          <year>2021</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>© </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
        <copyright-holder>Ebrima K. Ceesay, et al.</copyright-holder>
        <license xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple">
          <license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <self-uri xlink:href="http://openaccesspub.org/jar/article/1728">This article is available from http://openaccesspub.org/jar/article/1728</self-uri>
      <abstract>
        <p>Economic statistics concerning the                       quinquennial features of Agriculture employment (A), net Migration (M), Donor aid (D) and Personal                remittances (P), available for over forty years from five West African countries have here been related to the GDP (G). The overall results of a multilinear                 regression (R<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842048092">2</xref> 0.84) have confirmed that the GD ratio, which is an index of aid efficiency,  is significantly and positively driven by the PD ratio (high P and low                 D - favorable) and the PA ratio (high P and low                  A - favorable), but negatively driven by the PG ratio ( a higher D efficiency is obtained for constant G and lower P). A higher migration flux corresponds to a non-significant rise in the GD ratio. The five                     countries are clustered, by means of a principal                 component analysis, into three types. Partial least square regressions fitted to the GD ratio within each cluster provide a  long-term polydromic function that highlights certain particular cluster features: <italic>reactive</italic> to forcing factors, such as  Donor diminutions (SEN), <italic>active,</italic> as driven by Personal remittance (MLI), and mostly <italic>entropic</italic> for GMB, GNB and MRT. The learnt from the database is that Donor variations may follow different evolutions of the GD ratio in the three         clusters.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Agriculture employment</kwd>
        <kwd>GDP-to-donor aid</kwd>
        <kwd>Multilinear regression (MLR)</kwd>
        <kwd>Partial least squares regression (PLSR)</kwd>
        <kwd>Principal component analysis (PCA)</kwd>
        <kwd>West African countries</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
      <counts>
        <fig-count count="12"/>
        <table-count count="6"/>
        <page-count count="16"/>
      </counts>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="idm1842587844" sec-type="intro">
      <title>Introduction </title>
      <p>Agriculture and employment in agriculture                 remain a vital source of livelihood for the majority of             African countries, as can be observed in Senegal (SEN), Mali (MLI), Gambia (GMB), Guinea Bissau (GNB), and      Mauritania (MRT), the five countries on which the study is based. West African agriculture is mainly characterized by subsistence farming,  which leads to a dependence on rain-fed agriculture, a low use of irrigation methods, limited public investment in agriculture, gender disparities                 between males and females, institutional support and a lack of credit facilities to support small and medium sized farmers. All these factors prevent these countries from increasing their agriculture productivity, mitigating and adapting to climate change problems and encouraging agricultural value chains and trade liberalization.                       According to ILO <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842049748">1</xref>, the agricultural employment sector on average constitutes 54% of the working population in    Africa. In addition to the massive labor force, sub-Saharan Africa also has the highest area of uncultivated arable land in the world and a huge agricultural growth potential <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842048092">2</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842119588">3</xref>. However, African countries have not yet taken advantage of this potential. Despite the importance of the sector, about one-fourth of the population experiences               hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. Out of about 795 million people who globally suffer from chronic under                       nourishment, 220 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. The FAO <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842061636">4</xref> states that this figure, which is at around 23.2%, indicates the highest prevalence of undernourishment throughout the world. However, food shortages can also happen in food abundant regions, mostly due to poor               conservation techniques or post-harvest losses. In fact, overall, the continent is a net importer of food, which puts additional strain on the scarce foreign exchange reserves.</p>
      <p>The women involved in agriculture in particular face severe challenges. Although they represent 47% of the labor force, they are prominently smallholder farmers, because the patriarchy system has tended to discriminate against them <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842048092">2</xref>. The customary laws and rules that govern the ownership and transfer of land rights are generally unfavorable to women in sub-Saharan Africa, and titles and inheritance rights are conferred to male family             members. The women involved in agriculture also suffer from  a lack of access to finance, to modern inputs as well as to a lack of knowledge and skills about modern                   agricultural practices <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842119588">3</xref>. Without these disadvantages, women could be just as industrious as men, not only in agriculture but also in each and every sector. According to the FAO <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842124772">5</xref>, if women had access to the same resources as men, their agricultural yields would increase by up to 30%, thereby reducing the number of hungry people      globally by 100–150 million.</p>
      <p>Migration and remittances are interconnected <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842159476">6</xref>. Migration has been projected to boost Africa’s GDP per capita from $2,008 in 2016 to $3,249 in 2030, that is, growing at an annual rate of 3.5% from 2016 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841917980">7</xref>.</p>
      <p>The knowledge and statistics about Donor Aid in the ECOWAS region were reviewed and discussed by               Engel and Jouanjean <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841915100">8</xref>, with the aim of providing an                  overview to help inform programs, as well as to encourage more sector- and country-focused studies.</p>
      <p>The covariance among migration, employment in agriculture and remittance received from outside, as a component of the GDP, enables the efficiency of foreign aid in West African countries to be disentangled. The present paper explores the roles played by each endogenous               variable in the contribution to the GDP of these countries. The study highlights the key features in which the                 migration of labor from agriculture, remittances received by skilled or unskilled immigrants, and the employment of the young in agricultural industries can contribute toward the economic growth and potential of such countries to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGS). </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="idm1842593100">
      <title>Experimental Procedure</title>
      <p>The aims of the study in particular have been: 1) to build a multilinear regression model (MLR) of the              economic statistics available for over forty years from five West  African countries by maximizing the Donor aid (D) to GDP (G) (DG) ratio using the ratios of Personal                 remittances (P) to G (PG), of P to D (PD),  and of P to               Agriculture employment (A) (PA) as independent                 variables, and including the net Migration flux (M) in the model; 2) to cluster the five countries, through a principal component analysis (PCA), and to establish a set of partial least square regression models (PLSR) of the five                  countries, in order to describe a  long-term polydromic function that can be used to disentangle Personal                remittances, Agriculture    employment and migration, to raise the Donor aid-to-GDP ratio. </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="idm1842591732" sec-type="materials">
      <title>Material and Methods </title>
      <sec id="idm1842592812">
        <title>Source of Data</title>
        <p>The data used in this study (<xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841606420">Table 1</xref>) were                obtained from quinquennial WDI statistics for the                1977-2017 interval from the five aforementioned                countries in West Africa (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841601524">Figure 1</xref>). When data were             missing, the entire rows were eliminated, and for this           reason there is a total observation number of 32 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841583612">Table 2</xref>). </p>
        <fig id="idm1841601524">
          <label>Figure 1.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> The study area: Gambia (GMB, 10 380 km2), Guinea-Bissau (GNB, 36125 km2), Mali (MLI, 1 240 192 km2), Mauritania (MRT, 1 030 700 km2) and   Senegal ( SEN, 196 723 km2).</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image1.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842579500">
        <title>Statistical Analyses</title>
        <p>A partial least square regression (PLSR) method is recommended when the number of observations is             limited compared to the dependent \ independent                variables. This method is used widely in spectroscopy to fit quantitative dimensions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841913444">9</xref>, discriminate qualitative              classes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841910852">10</xref>, or to solve economic problems <sup>11, 12</sup>. A different approach, with latent variables, which is usually applied in the socio-economic field, is the PLS path method <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841900612">13</xref>. In the present paper, a multilinear regression (MLR), a PLSR and a principal component analysis (PCA) have been used, as taken from the XLSTAT 2019.4.1 (Addinsoft SARL USA, New York, NY, USA) package.  The PLSR models were             fitted to the GD ratio for the five countries, using all of the four main independent variables (P, D, A, M) as well as their relative  ratios to P (PG, PD, PA). A single MLR model was fitted to the overall countries, with GD as a dependent variable and PG, PD, PA, and M as independent ones. The PCA was applied to the whole dataset to find clusters among the countries.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="idm1842577484" sec-type="results">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>Dataset (<xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841583612">Table 2</xref>). The data used in the work are presented  in <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841583612">Table 2</xref>.</p>
      <p><italic>MLR solution for the overall country DG.  </italic>A good fit was achieved for all the relationships across the years (<xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841269700">Table 3</xref>) with an R<sup>2</sup> of 0.84 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841241116">Figure 2</xref>). The DG ratio was favored by a positive PD ratio, with a higher Std. Coef. (+1.87) and R<sup>2</sup> (0.699) as well as by an increase in the (negative) migration fluxes (-0.13; P 0.06). Moreover, the DG ratio was significantly and inversely related to the PG ratio (-0.88) and to the PA ratio (-0.35).</p>
      <table-wrap id="idm1841606420">
        <label>Table 1.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Variables retrieved from the WDI database </title>
        </caption>
        <table rules="all" frame="box">
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td>Variables</td>
              <td>Comments</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>G- GDP Current (US$)</td>
              <td>Current GDP</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>M- Net Migration</td>
              <td>Net migration is the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants, including citizens and noncitizens, for the five-year  period.</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>P- Personal Remittances</td>
              <td>Personal remittances, received (current US$)</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>A- Employment in agriculture (% of total employment)</td>
              <td>Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate)</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>D- Net bilateral aid flows</td>
              <td>Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Total (current US$)</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </table-wrap>
      <table-wrap id="idm1841583612">
        <label>Table 2.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Data collected from the five countries </title>
        </caption>
        <table rules="all" frame="box">
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td>Country</td>
              <td>Year</td>
              <td>G_M$</td>
              <td>M_K</td>
              <td>A_%</td>
              <td>D_M$</td>
              <td>P_M$</td>
              <td>G/D</td>
              <td>P/D_%</td>
              <td>Ln(P/A)</td>
              <td>PG%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td>G</td>
              <td>M</td>
              <td>A</td>
              <td>D</td>
              <td>P</td>
              <td>GD</td>
              <td>PD</td>
              <td>PA</td>
              <td>PG</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GMB</td>
              <td>1982</td>
              <td>216.05</td>
              <td>14.88</td>
              <td>42.13</td>
              <td>30.31</td>
              <td>0.19</td>
              <td>7.13</td>
              <td>1%</td>
              <td>8.40</td>
              <td>0.09%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GMB</td>
              <td>2007</td>
              <td>1279.70</td>
              <td>-15.44</td>
              <td>32.92</td>
              <td>42.44</td>
              <td>55.66</td>
              <td>30.15</td>
              <td>131%</td>
              <td>14.34</td>
              <td>4.35%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GMB</td>
              <td>2012</td>
              <td>1415.01</td>
              <td>-15.44</td>
              <td>30.54</td>
              <td>50.85</td>
              <td>106.35</td>
              <td>27.83</td>
              <td>209%</td>
              <td>15.06</td>
              <td>7.52%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GMB</td>
              <td>2017</td>
              <td>1504.95</td>
              <td>-15.44</td>
              <td>28.48</td>
              <td>94.89</td>
              <td>228.18</td>
              <td>15.86</td>
              <td>240%</td>
              <td>15.90</td>
              <td>15.16%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GNB</td>
              <td>1992</td>
              <td>226.31</td>
              <td>-30.00</td>
              <td>73.16</td>
              <td>64.39</td>
              <td>1.33</td>
              <td>3.51</td>
              <td>2%</td>
              <td>9.81</td>
              <td>0.59%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GNB</td>
              <td>1997</td>
              <td>268.55</td>
              <td>-41.17</td>
              <td>72.96</td>
              <td>84.41</td>
              <td>2.00</td>
              <td>3.18</td>
              <td>2%</td>
              <td>10.22</td>
              <td>0.74%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GNB</td>
              <td>2002</td>
              <td>415.84</td>
              <td>-27.93</td>
              <td>72.51</td>
              <td>48.1</td>
              <td>17.63</td>
              <td>8.65</td>
              <td>37%</td>
              <td>12.40</td>
              <td>4.24%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GNB</td>
              <td>2007</td>
              <td>695.99</td>
              <td>-17.50</td>
              <td>71.77</td>
              <td>88.59</td>
              <td>43.03</td>
              <td>7.86</td>
              <td>49%</td>
              <td>13.30</td>
              <td>6.18%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GNB</td>
              <td>2012</td>
              <td>989.33</td>
              <td>-7.01</td>
              <td>70.53</td>
              <td>51.92</td>
              <td>45.64</td>
              <td>19.05</td>
              <td>88%</td>
              <td>13.38</td>
              <td>4.61%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>GNB</td>
              <td>2017</td>
              <td>1346.84</td>
              <td>-7.00</td>
              <td>68.85</td>
              <td>52.54</td>
              <td>104.92</td>
              <td>25.63</td>
              <td>200%</td>
              <td>14.24</td>
              <td>7.79%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>1977</td>
              <td>1049.84</td>
              <td>-175.00</td>
              <td>81.53</td>
              <td>72.82</td>
              <td>26.50</td>
              <td>14.42</td>
              <td>36%</td>
              <td>12.69</td>
              <td>2.52%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>1982</td>
              <td>1333.75</td>
              <td>-218.06</td>
              <td>79.44</td>
              <td>115.05</td>
              <td>39.41</td>
              <td>11.59</td>
              <td>34%</td>
              <td>13.11</td>
              <td>2.95%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>1987</td>
              <td>2090.63</td>
              <td>-493.98</td>
              <td>77.35</td>
              <td>255.31</td>
              <td>88.18</td>
              <td>8.19</td>
              <td>35%</td>
              <td>13.95</td>
              <td>4.22%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>1992</td>
              <td>2830.67</td>
              <td>-173.49</td>
              <td>74.02</td>
              <td>310.3</td>
              <td>116.55</td>
              <td>9.12</td>
              <td>38%</td>
              <td>14.27</td>
              <td>4.12%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>1997</td>
              <td>2697.11</td>
              <td>-141.95</td>
              <td>73.31</td>
              <td>308.09</td>
              <td>91.72</td>
              <td>8.75</td>
              <td>30%</td>
              <td>14.04</td>
              <td>3.40%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>2002</td>
              <td>3889.76</td>
              <td>-67.11</td>
              <td>71.54</td>
              <td>308.59</td>
              <td>137.65</td>
              <td>12.60</td>
              <td>45%</td>
              <td>14.47</td>
              <td>3.54%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>2007</td>
              <td>8145.69</td>
              <td>-100.82</td>
              <td>69.78</td>
              <td>736.61</td>
              <td>343.92</td>
              <td>11.06</td>
              <td>47%</td>
              <td>15.41</td>
              <td>4.22%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>2012</td>
              <td>12442.75</td>
              <td>-302.45</td>
              <td>68.06</td>
              <td>818.1</td>
              <td>827.46</td>
              <td>15.21</td>
              <td>101%</td>
              <td>16.31</td>
              <td>6.65%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MLI</td>
              <td>2017</td>
              <td>15337.74</td>
              <td>-200.00</td>
              <td>63.01</td>
              <td>928.83</td>
              <td>883.26</td>
              <td>16.51</td>
              <td>95%</td>
              <td>16.46</td>
              <td>5.76%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MRT</td>
              <td>1977</td>
              <td>540.64</td>
              <td>-9.70</td>
              <td>71.42</td>
              <td>36.07</td>
              <td>0.31</td>
              <td>14.99</td>
              <td>1%</td>
              <td>8.37</td>
              <td>0.06%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MRT</td>
              <td>1982</td>
              <td>750.21</td>
              <td>-16.10</td>
              <td>69.17</td>
              <td>75.65</td>
              <td>2.32</td>
              <td>9.92</td>
              <td>3%</td>
              <td>10.42</td>
              <td>0.31%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MRT</td>
              <td>1987</td>
              <td>909.82</td>
              <td>-40.00</td>
              <td>66.91</td>
              <td>107.66</td>
              <td>6.70</td>
              <td>8.45</td>
              <td>6%</td>
              <td>11.51</td>
              <td>0.74%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MRT</td>
              <td>1992</td>
              <td>1464.39</td>
              <td>-44.62</td>
              <td>63.10</td>
              <td>159.4</td>
              <td>50.13</td>
              <td>9.19</td>
              <td>31%</td>
              <td>13.59</td>
              <td>3.42%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>MRT</td>
              <td>1997</td>
              <td>1401.95</td>
              <td>-44.00</td>
              <td>62.57</td>
              <td>177.75</td>
              <td>2.69</td>
              <td>7.89</td>
              <td>2%</td>
              <td>10.67</td>
              <td>0.19%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>1982</td>
              <td>3936.76</td>
              <td>-85.11</td>
              <td>58.10</td>
              <td>228.62</td>
              <td>66.31</td>
              <td>17.22</td>
              <td>29%</td>
              <td>13.95</td>
              <td>1.68%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>1987</td>
              <td>6381.39</td>
              <td>-60.29</td>
              <td>54.47</td>
              <td>432.65</td>
              <td>117.82</td>
              <td>14.75</td>
              <td>27%</td>
              <td>14.59</td>
              <td>1.85%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>1992</td>
              <td>7602.01</td>
              <td>-77.00</td>
              <td>48.72</td>
              <td>494.09</td>
              <td>175.68</td>
              <td>15.39</td>
              <td>36%</td>
              <td>15.10</td>
              <td>2.31%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>1997</td>
              <td>5915.25</td>
              <td>-227.55</td>
              <td>47.80</td>
              <td>337.26</td>
              <td>150.47</td>
              <td>17.54</td>
              <td>45%</td>
              <td>14.96</td>
              <td>2.54%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>2002</td>
              <td>6752.51</td>
              <td>-202.49</td>
              <td>45.14</td>
              <td>297.83</td>
              <td>346.12</td>
              <td>22.67</td>
              <td>116%</td>
              <td>15.85</td>
              <td>5.13%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>2007</td>
              <td>14285.97</td>
              <td>-218.01</td>
              <td>40.62</td>
              <td>548.76</td>
              <td>1193.38</td>
              <td>26.03</td>
              <td>217%</td>
              <td>17.20</td>
              <td>8.35%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>2012</td>
              <td>17825.42</td>
              <td>-214.00</td>
              <td>36.40</td>
              <td>803.82</td>
              <td>1576.23</td>
              <td>22.18</td>
              <td>196%</td>
              <td>17.58</td>
              <td>8.84%</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>SEN</td>
              <td>2017</td>
              <td>21081.67</td>
              <td>-100.00</td>
              <td>31.54</td>
              <td>591.98</td>
              <td>2148.91</td>
              <td>35.61</td>
              <td>363%</td>
              <td>18.04</td>
              <td>10.19%</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </table-wrap>
      <table-wrap id="idm1841269700">
        <label>Table 3.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> MLR model and solutions for the overall country DG </title>
        </caption>
        <table rules="all" frame="box">
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td>Variables</td>
              <td>Coef.</td>
              <td>SE</td>
              <td>Std. Coef.</td>
              <td>SE</td>
              <td>P</td>
              <td>   RR<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842048092">2</xref> partial</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>Intercept</td>
              <td>-2.1624</td>
              <td>4.9389</td>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td>0.665</td>
              <td> </td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>PD</td>
              <td>11.4915</td>
              <td>1.4932</td>
              <td>1.2893</td>
              <td>0.1675</td>
              <td>&lt; 0.0001</td>
              <td>0.699</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>PG</td>
              <td>-191.4112</td>
              <td>39.5330</td>
              <td>-0.8259</td>
              <td>0.1706</td>
              <td>&lt; 0.0001</td>
              <td>0.098</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>LN(PA)</td>
              <td>1.2271</td>
              <td>0.4421</td>
              <td>0.3881</td>
              <td>0.1398</td>
              <td>0.010</td>
              <td>0.042</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>M</td>
              <td>0.0063</td>
              <td>0.0066</td>
              <td>0.0895</td>
              <td>0.0932</td>
              <td>0.346</td>
              <td>0.005</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td>0.844</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </table-wrap>
      <fig id="idm1841241116">
        <label>Figure 2.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Scatterplot of the predicted \ observed GD values from the MLR model labeled by country.</title>
        </caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="images/image2.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
      </fig>
      <sec id="idm1842332876">
        <title>Trends in the Countries.</title>
        <p>The <italic>GD, G to D ratio (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841225060">Figure 3</xref><italic>). </italic>On average, a rise of 0.33±0.09 Y<sup>-1</sup>(R<sup>2</sup> 0.28; P 0.00083) is observed over the years, but a decline can be observed for the 1977-1997 interval and a negative shift for GMB, which makes its                 performance worse from 2007, similarly to SEN, whose trend, however, becomes regularized in 2017. The                 greatest improvement is observed for GNB. On average, a yearly linear regression of +0.33 Y<sup>-1 </sup>in the GD ratio is           reported, with a mean value of 14.94, corresponding to a growth of +2.2% Y<sup>-1</sup> in the GD ratio, but not in G. However, it should be pointed out that the trend only becomes             favorable in the new millennium.</p>
        <p>The <italic>PD, P to D ratio (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841224268">Figure 4</xref><italic>). </italic>The value of the ratio started to increase from  2000, as it is driven by the performances of SEN, GMB and GNB. The yearly linear regression is 0.052±0.009 Y<sup>-1</sup>(R<sup>2</sup>0.55; P 0.0001), which results in a mean value of 0.778, corresponding to a growth of +6.6% Y<sup>-1</sup>. However, it should be pointed out that the trend only becomes favorable in the new                  millennium.</p>
        <p>The <italic>PG, P to G ratio (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841222612">Figure 5</xref><italic>). </italic>The ratio of P to G generally increases, and this increase begins to accelerate from 2002, albeit more regularly in GMB and SEN than in GNB and MLI.</p>
        <p>The <italic>PA, P to A ratio (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841221388">Figure 6</xref><italic>).</italic> On average, the             P-to-A ratio rises almost regularly by 0.13 per year from 1977,  except for MRT, albeit with  great differences in the starting levels among the countries, where SEN and MLI surpass the others. </p>
        <p>The <italic>M, Net Migration flux (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841221532">Figure 7</xref><italic>).</italic> Dramatic MLI events occurred in 1987 and 2012.  A large increase in migration can be observed from SEN from 1992 to 2012, which eventually reduces. The GNB trend is oriented            toward reduced fluxes. The GMB, from the previous host country, is therefore marked by a stable share of                estimated migrants.  </p>
        <p><italic>A, Agriculture employment (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841222396">Figure 8</xref><italic>).</italic> Somewhat different conditions characterize the GNB and MLI, which show values of over 65% for 2017, for MRT and  around 30% for SE and GMB. The A decay is minimum for GNB             (-0.167 % Y<sup>-1</sup>), intermedium for GMB (-0.387 % Y<sup>-1</sup>), for MLI ( -0.419 % Y<sup>-1</sup>) and for MRT (-0.467 % Y<sup>-1</sup>), while it is maximum for SEN (-0.724 % Y<sup>-1</sup>).</p>
        <p><italic>P,  Personal remittances (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841218148">Figure 9</xref><italic>, </italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841218652">Figure 10</xref><italic>). </italic>Starting from 2000, theSenegalese people increase their personal remittances and reach a nearly three-fold value forMLI in 2017 and a nearly fifteen-fold value for the other three (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841221388">Figure 6</xref>). As far as the GMB of the minor countries is                   concerned, a steady increase <italic>vs.</italic> GNB and MRT can be              observed from 2007 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841221532">Figure 7</xref>). </p>
        <p><italic>D- Net bilateral aid flows (</italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841216708">Figure 11</xref><italic>). </italic>GMB and GNB are mostly entropic, and MRT shows a slow flexus: these three countries are clustered in the D-to-G ratio (see below). SEN and MLI show similar trends with the                 relative maxima in 1992 and 2012 and with the minima in 2000, but show divergent final trends because SEN D is lowered while D is growing in MLI.</p>
        <fig id="idm1841225060">
          <label>Figure 3.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trend of the G to D ratio for the five countries</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image3.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841224268">
          <label>Figure 4.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trend of the P to D ratio for the five countries, with linear and parabolic yearly regressions </title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image4.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841222612">
          <label>Figure 5.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trend of the P to G ratio for the five countries. </title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image5.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841221388">
          <label>Figure 6.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trend of the Ln (P/Agriculture employments) for the five countries </title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image6.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841221532">
          <label>Figure 7.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trends of the absolute migration flux for the five countries</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image7.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841222396">
          <label>Figure 8.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trends of agriculture employment for the five countries</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image8.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841218148">
          <label>Figure 9.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trend of the personal remittance for the five countries</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image9.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841218652">
          <label>Figure 10.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trend of the personal remittances for the three minor countries</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image10.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841216708">
          <label>Figure 11.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Trend of the net bilateral aid flows for the five countries .</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image11.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842307988">
        <title>Principal Component Analysis and Clustering Countries</title>
        <p> The PCA shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841279708">Figure 12</xref> highlights that the active observations are clustered into three aggregates, namely, GMB, GNB and MRT (as Cluster I), MLI (as Cluster II) and SEN as (Cluster III).  Among the variables in the first quadrant, GD  neighbors PG and PD, as opposed to A and DG displayed in the third quadrant, while P, PA, G and D are positioned in the second quadrant. Migration (negative sign) is the only active variable in the fourth quadrant and distinguishes the members of Cluster I             because of their reduced fluxes.</p>
        <p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842049748">1</xref>Values are considered significant at P 0.05 &gt; |0.372|   r MD.G = -0.359</p>
        <fig id="idm1841279708">
          <label>Figure 12.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Principal component analysis of the endogenous and derivate variables and active observation (the five countries by year) reported in Table 2 </title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image12.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842304964">
        <title>Partial Least Squares (PLSR) Coefficients for the G-to-D  Ratio within Clusters and Polydromic Coefficients</title>
        <p>The solutions of the complete models are                 reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841139892">Table 4</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841034108">Table 5</xref> for the three envisaged clusters. </p>
        <p>The coefficient of the three clusters are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841007468">Table 6</xref> as Polydromic coefficients for the G-to-D ratio. </p>
        <table-wrap id="idm1841139892">
          <label>Table 4.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Correlation matrix of Table 2 (Pearson)1 </title>
          </caption>
          <table rules="all" frame="box">
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Variables</td>
                <td>G</td>
                <td>M</td>
                <td>A</td>
                <td>D</td>
                <td>GD</td>
                <td>GD</td>
                <td>P</td>
                <td>PG</td>
                <td>PD</td>
                <td>PA</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>G</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>-0.375</td>
                <td>-0.463</td>
                <td>0.877</td>
                <td>0.41</td>
                <td>-0.411</td>
                <td>0.94</td>
                <td>0.488</td>
                <td>0.644</td>
                <td>0.868</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>M</td>
                <td>-0.375</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>-0.142</td>
                <td>-0.489</td>
                <td>0.104</td>
                <td>0.114</td>
                <td>-0.309</td>
                <td>-0.169</td>
                <td>-0.064</td>
                <td>-0.211</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>A</td>
                <td>-0.463</td>
                <td>-0.142</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>-0.204</td>
                <td>-0.626</td>
                <td>0.509</td>
                <td>-0.494</td>
                <td>-0.605</td>
                <td>-0.787</td>
                <td>-0.542</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>D</td>
                <td>0.877</td>
                <td>-0.489</td>
                <td>-0.204</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>0.088</td>
                <td>-0.265</td>
                <td>0.723</td>
                <td>0.357</td>
                <td>0.339</td>
                <td>0.583</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>GD</td>
                <td>0.41</td>
                <td>0.104</td>
                <td>-0.626</td>
                <td>0.088</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>-0.692</td>
                <td>0.384</td>
                <td>0.268</td>
                <td>0.59</td>
                <td>0.411</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>DG</td>
                <td>-0.411</td>
                <td>0.114</td>
                <td>0.509</td>
                <td>-0.265</td>
                <td>-0.692</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>-0.334</td>
                <td>-0.373</td>
                <td>-0.487</td>
                <td>-0.314</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>P</td>
                <td>0.94</td>
                <td>-0.309</td>
                <td>-0.494</td>
                <td>0.723</td>
                <td>0.384</td>
                <td>-0.334</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>0.607</td>
                <td>0.777</td>
                <td>0.975</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>PG</td>
                <td>0.488</td>
                <td>-0.169</td>
                <td>-0.605</td>
                <td>0.357</td>
                <td>0.268</td>
                <td>-0.373</td>
                <td>0.607</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>0.858</td>
                <td>0.599</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>PD</td>
                <td>0.644</td>
                <td>-0.064</td>
                <td>-0.787</td>
                <td>0.339</td>
                <td>0.59</td>
                <td>-0.487</td>
                <td>0.777</td>
                <td>0.858</td>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>0.812</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>PA</td>
                <td>0.868</td>
                <td>-0.211</td>
                <td>-0.542</td>
                <td>0.583</td>
                <td>0.411</td>
                <td>-0.314</td>
                <td>0.975</td>
                <td>0.599</td>
                <td>0.812</td>
                <td>1</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <table-wrap id="idm1841034108">
          <label>Table 5.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> PLSR solutions for the G-to-D ratio within Clusters </title>
          </caption>
          <table rules="all" frame="box">
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td> </td>
                <td>Const.</td>
                <td>M</td>
                <td>A</td>
                <td>D</td>
                <td>P</td>
                <td>PD</td>
                <td>PG</td>
                <td>LN(PA)</td>
                <td>R2</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Cl.I</td>
                <td>13.619</td>
                <td>0.105</td>
                <td>-0.089</td>
                <td>-0.057</td>
                <td>-0.001</td>
                <td>3.026</td>
                <td>-7.663</td>
                <td>0.818</td>
                <td>0.64</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Cl.II</td>
                <td>5.52</td>
                <td>-0.011</td>
                <td>0.075</td>
                <td>0</td>
                <td>0.002</td>
                <td>4.753</td>
                <td>-5.383</td>
                <td>-0.232</td>
                <td>0.58</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>CL.III</td>
                <td>19.711</td>
                <td>0.019</td>
                <td>-0.142</td>
                <td>-0.017</td>
                <td>0.002</td>
                <td>2.779</td>
                <td>48.822</td>
                <td>0.693</td>
                <td>0.99</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <table-wrap id="idm1841007468">
          <label>Table 6.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Polydromic coefficients for the G-to-D ratio within Clusters</title>
          </caption>
          <table rules="all" frame="box">
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Clusters</td>
                <td>M</td>
                <td>A</td>
                <td>D</td>
                <td>P</td>
                <td>PD</td>
                <td>PG</td>
                <td>LN(PA)</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>I- GMB, GNB, MRT - E<italic>ntropic</italic></td>
                <td>0.20</td>
                <td>-0.17</td>
                <td>-0.28</td>
                <td>-0.01</td>
                <td>0.30</td>
                <td>-0.04</td>
                <td>0.23</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>II- MLI - <italic>Active</italic></td>
                <td>-0.29</td>
                <td>0.16</td>
                <td>-0.03</td>
                <td>0.31</td>
                <td>0.48</td>
                <td>-0.03</td>
                <td>-0.11</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>III- SEN - <italic>Reactive</italic></td>
                <td>0.20</td>
                <td>-0.18</td>
                <td>-0.45</td>
                <td>0.27</td>
                <td>0.49</td>
                <td>0.25</td>
                <td>0.15</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p> MLI shows a great benefit from the M and A            factors in cluster II (<italic>active Country</italic>).</p>
        <p><italic>Country</italic> SEN excels for the maximum reaction to D decrease and shows high scores for the PG ratio in             cluster III (<italic>reactive Country</italic>).</p>
        <p><italic>Countries </italic>GMB, GNB and MRT show a favorable reaction to a D decrease and negative influences from a higher A in cluster I (<italic>entropic Country</italic>).</p>
        <p>In short, as far as Migration is concerned, an             increase shows a positive response to MLI (Coeff. -0.29: <italic>active Country</italic>) and a slightly negative one to the others (0.20)<italic>.</italic> Agriculture employment is apparently more              favorable to the G-to-D ratio in MLI-<italic>active</italic> (0.16), but            unfavorable to the others.</p>
        <p>Importantly, the consequences of a decrease in D appears more favorable to the G-to-D ratio for SEN (-0.45: <italic>reactive Country</italic>), slightly  favorable for GMB, GNB, MRT            (-0.28) and not favorable at all for MLI (-0.03).</p>
        <p>The G-to-D ratio is responsible for increasing           Personal remises for MLI (0.31) and SEN (0.27)<italic>.</italic></p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="idm1842178468" sec-type="discussion">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>Clemens et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841891772">14</xref> concluded, in their assessment, that: “the aid-growth literature does not currently possess a strong and patently valid instrumental variable with which to reliably test the hypothesis that aid strictly       causes growth.”  Despite some missing observations in this panel of five west African countries, especially in MRT, some interesting long-term results have emerged                   concerning the G-to-D ratio, a parameter that we have found as being a pivotal variable for efficiency, while the rule in panel for G growth is usually the inverse i.e. the D to G incidence as independent variable. The                  aforementioned Authors concluded that a 0.3÷ 0.5                    percentage- point increase in investment/GDP and                a 0.1÷ 0.2 percentage-point increase in growth of the real GDP per capita followed a one percentage-point increase in aid/GDP (at mean aid levels). Alemu and Lee <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841890260">15</xref>                    supported the theoretical hypothesis that a positive                relationship between D and G growth exists, but only for low-income African countries, and not for middle-income ones. Galiani et al <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841886732">16</xref> confirmed that a 1% percent increase in the aid-to-gross net income ratio increases the real              annual per capita GDP growth by 0.031%.</p>
      <p>In the present sample of five West African                 countries, the growth appears more optimistic in the large interval that was considered, that is, at around +2.2%, when considering the G-to-D ratio, and also shows a                 favorable parabolic trend.  However, it should be pointed out that the trend only becomes favorable in the new               millennium.</p>
      <sec id="idm1842177748">
        <title>Migration and Remittances</title>
        <p>The effects of the migration (as net fluxes) returns on P are delayed over the years, thus the favorable raw Pearson correlations of M with P (-0.309 not significant) cannot account for time-lag effects. According to Rozelle et al <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841877028">17</xref>, remittances are a positive function of migration.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842176092">
        <title>Migration and Donors</title>
        <p>As far as D and M are concerned, the correlation table reflects a general greater effort (D) to deter future migration (r D,M -0.489), where almost all the negative M net fluxes are ligated with a higher income from D. It should be noted that the DM correlation decreases slightly to a value that was recalculated at a parity of G                      (r D,M.G -0.359).  Clemens and Postel <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841872924">18</xref>  (2017) reached a similar conclusion from a wider panel (2678 observations in the1995-2013 interval) and observed that the                     relationship between D (X axis)  and the Log of Emigration Rate (Y)  was negative, even for different levels of Income. The same Authors pointed out that the capacity of aid to deter migration is limited at best. Aid can only encourage economic growth, employment and security to a limited extent. Beyond this, successful development in almost all formerly-poor countries has produced an increase in                 emigration. Moreover, Lanati and Thiele <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841873140">19</xref> wrote about the impact of foreign aid on revisited migration and found a negative correlation between the total aid a country      obtains and its emigration rate. This evidence was also confirmed in most of the important empirical studies,      similar to the results of Berthélemy et al <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841871772">20</xref>, who studied the connection between the total aid received in a country and migration for a large cross section of developing    countries. </p>
        <p>In our analyses, we confirm that, in a long-term framework, migration acts like a magnet for donor aid.   However, because of the weak and non-linear influence of migration on the GD ratio, our MLR model puts the partial coefficient of migration in the last position, with a nearly zero coefficient, and accounting for only 0.5% of the               variance, thus supporting the independence of the average of G to D from migration.  </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842177172">
        <title>Donor Aid and Remittances</title>
        <p>It should be recalled that the average trend for the GD ratio, in current values, shows increasing values (+0.33 Y<sup>-1</sup>) with a parabolic acceleration over the  years, and the level is somewhat higher for SEN (21.42; +68% <italic>vs.</italic> the       others).  The aid for development naturally appears in the national balances, since the variations in G in fact depend on D for more than 76%, while an even greater influence (over 88%) can be observed for the P source (<xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841034108">Table 5</xref>). In this work, the importance of the P-to-D ratio for the GD donor efficiency has emerged (nearly 70%). The PD ratio is below 1 for many years in almost all the considered countries. However, after the first returns from migrants, the critical threshold is exceeded to a great extent, which is a sign that a real economic takeoff has begun. In fact, after maximizing overall, it appears that the variation in D raw efficiency, in the framework of the endogenous              variates censed every five years, mainly depends on the PD ratio for about 70%, that is, a greater value than the P with D itself  (R<sup>2</sup>52%, <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841034108">Table 5</xref>).  Thus, the main key for assessing economic efficiency appears to be  the balance of the personal remittances with donor aid: a shift up of the numerator (P) as well as a shift down of the denominator (D) is <italic>ceteris paribus</italic> an advantage in the global raw               efficiency chain. The yearly linear regression of +6.6% Y<sup>-1</sup>,and even more for the P-to-D ratio in the new millennium, may be a quite optimistic result, but this sample allows us to explain a different response from the three Clusters as a result of the variations in the D values. In fact, our aim was to discern countries according to their aptitude against variations in D.  From this perspective,  the polydromic GD coefficients for D distinguished the three clusters,                  enhancing a greater resilience for SEN (-0.45) than for GMB, GNM and MRT (-0.28) and for MLI (-0.03), which is a still active country as regard higher employment in                agriculture. </p>
        <p>On the other hand, Alemu and Lee <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841870476">21</xref> revealed that middle-income African countries tend to experience a greater impact on their economic growth from direct                foreign investment and natural resource revenues, and oil exports in particular.  In fact, the growth experienced in the five countries since the millennium seems to  be due not only to exogenous  forces, such as Donor aid and             Personal remittances, but also to endogenous economic factors. Our study is in agreement with that of Minasyan et al <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841868100">22</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1841881132">23</xref>, whose empirical results supported the hypothesis that higher remittances paid by donor countries                  strengthened the growth effects of foreign aid, especially where a more people-dedicated dual channel can be              developed and the remises were dedicated to such solid familiar investments as land, building and culture.                A concept that Clement and Postel (2017) also outlined is that donors could achieve a greater impact by leveraging on foreign aid in order not to deter migration, but to shape it for mutual benefits.  </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="idm1842175156" sec-type="conclusions">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>A long-term polydromic function can disentangle migration, agriculture employment and personal                      remittances to raise the GDP-to-Donor aid ratio in five African countries that have been grouped into three types: <italic>reactive</italic> to forcing factors, such as Donor diminutions (SEN), <italic>active,</italic> as driven by Personal remittance (MRT) and <italic>entropic</italic> (GMB, GNB, MRT), without any features of                 excellence. Lessons learnt from history suggests that             variations in Donor aid can involve   different evolutions of the GD ratio in the three clusters.  </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ridm1842049748">
        <label>1.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal"><article-title>International Labour Organization. Employment</article-title><date><year>2017</year></date>
in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate)


</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842048092">
        <label>2.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Kanu</surname>
            <given-names>B S</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Salami</surname>
            <given-names>A O</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Numasawa</surname>
            <given-names>K</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Inclusive growth: an imperative for African agriculture</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2014</year>
          </date>
          <source>African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development</source>
          <volume>14</volume>
          <issue>3</issue>
          <fpage>33</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842119588">
        <label>3.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>A</surname>
            <given-names>N Mukasa</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>A</surname>
            <given-names>D Woldemichael</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>A</surname>
            <given-names>O Salami</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>A</surname>
            <given-names>M Simpasa</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Africa’s Agricultural Transformation: Identifying Priority Areas and Overcoming Challenges. Africa Economic Brief</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2017</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842061636">
        <label>4.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>FAO</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <article-title>The State of Food Insecurity in the World Meeting the 2015 interaction hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2015</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842124772">
        <label>5.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Food</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <article-title>Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011) The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–2011: Women in agriculture - Closing the gender gap for development. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842159476">
        <label>6.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="book">
          <name>
            <surname>Ceesay</surname>
            <given-names>E</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Employment in agriculture, migration, bilateral aids, economic growth, and remittance:</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2020</year>
          </date>
          <chapter-title>Evidence from the Gambia. Economics, Management and Sustainability</chapter-title>
          <volume>5</volume>
          <issue>1</issue>
          <fpage>48</fpage>
          <lpage>67</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841917980">
        <label>7.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="book">
          <name>
            <surname>UNCTADALDCAFRICA2018</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <article-title>Economic Development in Africa Report 2018. Migration for Structural Transformation</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2018</year>
          </date>
          <chapter-title>In United Nations Conference on Trade and Development</chapter-title>
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          <lpage>204</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841915100">
        <label>8.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Engel</surname>
            <given-names>J</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Jouanjean</surname>
            <given-names>M A</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Political and economic constraints to the ECOWAS regional economic integration process and opportunities for donor engagement. EPA PEAKS–Economic and Private Sector, Professional and Applied Knowledge Services</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2015</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841913444">
        <label>9.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Næs</surname>
            <given-names>T</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Martens</surname>
            <given-names>H</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Multivariate calibration. II. Chemometric methods</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1984</year>
          </date>
          <source>TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry</source>
          <volume>3</volume>
          <fpage>266</fpage>
          <lpage>71</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841910852">
        <label>10.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Pérez-Enciso</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Tenenhaus</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Prediction of clinical outcome with microarray data: a partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) approach.Human genetics112</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2003</year>
          </date>
          <fpage>581</fpage>
          <lpage>92</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841905004">
        <label>11.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="book">
          <name>
            <surname>Zhang</surname>
            <given-names>B</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Ma</surname>
            <given-names>J</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Coal price index forecast by a new partial least-squares regression.Procedia</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2011</year>
          </date>
          <chapter-title>Engineering15</chapter-title>
          <fpage>5025</fpage>
          <lpage>9</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841902916">
        <label>12.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="book">
          <name>
            <surname>Meng</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Niu</surname>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>The relationship between energy consumption and economic growth in China: An application of the partial least squares method.Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2015</year>
          </date>
          <chapter-title>Policy10</chapter-title>
          <fpage>75</fpage>
          <lpage>81</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841900612">
        <label>13.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="book">
          <name>
            <surname>Vinzi</surname>
            <given-names>V E</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Trinchera</surname>
            <given-names>L</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Amato</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2010</year>
          </date>
          <chapter-title>In Handbook of partial least squares</chapter-title>
          <fpage>47</fpage>
          <lpage>82</lpage>
          <publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name>
          <publisher-loc>Berlin, Heidelberg</publisher-loc>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841891772">
        <label>14.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Clemens</surname>
            <given-names>M A</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Radelet</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>RR</surname>
            <given-names>Rikhil R Bhavnani</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Bazzi</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Counting chickens when they hatch: the short-term effect of aid on growth.Economic</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2012</year>
          </date>
          <volume>122</volume>
          <issue>561</issue>
          <fpage>590</fpage>
          <lpage>617</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841890260">
        <label>15.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Alemu</surname>
            <given-names>A M</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Lee</surname>
            <given-names>J S</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Foreign aid on economic growth in Africa: A comparison of low and middle-income countries.South</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2015</year>
          </date>
          <source>African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences</source>
          <volume>18</volume>
          <issue>4</issue>
          <fpage>449</fpage>
          <lpage>62</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841886732">
        <label>16.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Galiani</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Knack</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Xu</surname>
            <given-names>L C</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Zou</surname>
            <given-names>B</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>The effect of aid on growth: Evidence from a quasi-experiment.Journal of Economic Growth.22(1)</article-title>
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          <lpage>33</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841877028">
        <label>17.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Rozelle</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>J</surname>
            <given-names>E Taylor</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>DeBrauw</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Migration, remittances, and agricultural productivity in China.American Economic Review89</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1999</year>
          </date>
          <fpage>287</fpage>
          <lpage>91</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841872924">
        <label>18.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Clemens</surname>
            <given-names>M A</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Postel</surname>
            <given-names>H M</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Deterring emigration with foreign aid: an overview of evidence from low-income countries. IZA Policy Paper</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2017</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841873140">
        <label>19.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Lanati</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Thiele</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>The impact of foreign aid on migration revisited.World development111</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2018</year>
          </date>
          <fpage>59</fpage>
          <lpage>74</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841871772">
        <label>20.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="book">
          <name>
            <surname>Berthélemy</surname>
            <given-names>J C</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Beuran</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Maurel</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Aid and migration: Substitutes or complements?World</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2009</year>
          </date>
          <chapter-title>Development37</chapter-title>
          <fpage>1589</fpage>
          <lpage>99</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841870476">
        <label>21.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="book">
          <name>
            <surname>Alemu</surname>
            <given-names>A M</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Lee</surname>
            <given-names>J S</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Foreign aid on economic growth in Africa: A comparison of low and middle-income countries.South</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2015</year>
          </date>
          <chapter-title>African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences18</chapter-title>
          <fpage>449</fpage>
          <lpage>62</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841868100">
        <label>22.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Minasyan</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Nunnenkamp</surname>
            <given-names>P</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Remittances and the effectiveness of foreign aid.Review of Development Economics</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2016</year>
          </date>
          <volume>20</volume>
          <fpage>681</fpage>
          <lpage>701</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1841881132">
        <label>23.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Minasyan</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Nunnenkamp</surname>
            <given-names>P</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Richert</surname>
            <given-names>K</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Does aid effectiveness depend on the quality of donors? KielWorking Paper</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2016</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>
