TABLE 7
___________Determinants of participation to different categories of migration (logit models)___________ | ||||||
TEMPORARY |
PERMANENT |
INTERNATIONAL | ||||
Marginal and Raw Coeff. fixed effects |
Raw Coeff. |
Marginal and |
Raw Coeff. |
Marginal and | ||
Number of males in the hh. |
0.264 |
0.013 |
0.258 |
0.014 |
0.453 |
0.003 |
(3.49)*** |
(3.92)*** |
(4.87)*** | ||||
Number of females in the hh. |
-0.054 |
-0.003 |
0.039 |
0.002 |
0.334 |
0.002 |
-0.65 |
-0.51 |
(3.33)*** | ||||
Number of children in the hh. |
-0.082 |
-0.004 |
-0.136 |
-0.007 |
0.076 |
0.000 |
(2.04)** |
(3.31)*** |
-1.36 | ||||
Most educated in the hh |
-0.814 |
-0.040 |
0.512 |
0.028 |
0.521 |
0.003 |
(7.44)*** |
(5.86)*** |
(3.61)*** | ||||
Age of hh. head |
-0.014 |
-0.001 |
0.072 |
0.004 |
-0.011 |
0.000 |
-0.44 |
(2.40)** |
-0.25 | ||||
(Age of hh.head)2 |
0 |
0.000 |
-0.001 |
0.000 |
0 |
0.000 |
-0.04 |
(2.06)** |
-0.02 | ||||
Religion (whether it is Muslim) |
2.852 |
0.061 |
-0.075 |
-0.004 |
0.885 |
0.004 |
(5.39)*** |
-0.42 |
(2.98)*** | ||||
Land owned (pae) |
-2.674 |
-0.130 |
-1.392 |
-0.076 |
3.57 |
0.022 |
(4.45)*** |
(3.13)*** |
(3.10)*** | ||||
[Land owned (pae)]2 |
0.673 |
0.033 |
0.291 |
0.016 |
-2.388 |
-0.015 |
(5.39)*** |
(2.78)*** |
(2.33)** | ||||
Cattle owned (pae) |
0.275 |
0.013 |
-1.45 |
-0.079 |
-2.351 |
-0.015 |
-0.47 |
(3.90)*** |
(1.96)** | ||||
[Cattle owned (pae)]2 |
-0.75 |
-0.037 |
0.626 |
0.034 |
0.147 |
0.001 |
-1.19 |
(3.57)*** |
-0.08 | ||||
Farm equipment owned |
-0.128 |
-0.006 |
-0.148 |
-0.008 |
-0.012 |
0.000 |
-0.59 |
-1.17 |
-0.1 | ||||
Whether own tubwells |
-0.268 |
-0.012 |
0.537 |
0.036 |
0.645 |
0.005 |
-0.45 |
-1.07 |
-1.04 | ||||
N. of hhs. in the ‘bari’ |
0.001 |
0.000 |
0.01 |
0.001 |
-0.008 |
0.000 |
-0.09 |
-1.47 |
-0.71 | ||||
Self-poor assessment |
0.34 |
0.017 |
-0.115 |
-0.006 |
-1.143 |
-0.007 |
(2.60)*** |
-0.91 |
(4.39)*** | ||||
% out-temp. migrants in the village |
10.397 |
0.506 |
-1.636 |
-0.089 |
-0.041 |
0.000 |
(4.27)*** |
-0.7 |
-0.01 | ||||
% out-perm. migrants in the village |
-9.677 |
-0.471 |
11.811 |
0.641 |
1.91 |
0.012 |
(2.36)** |
(2.94)*** |
-0.25 | ||||
% out-intern. migrants in the village |
-7.316 |
-0.356 |
3.916 |
0.213 |
15.936 |
0.098 |
(2.58)*** |
-1.35 |
(3.24)*** | ||||
Network |
-0.04 |
-0.002 |
1.2 |
0.106 |
0.552 |
0.004 |
-0.16 |
(5.88)*** |
(1.87)* | ||||
Regional dummy |
-3.407 |
-0.206 |
0.068 |
0.004 |
-1.503 |
-0.010 |
(4.07)*** |
-0.08 |
-1.04 | ||||
Constant |
-1.462 |
-6.783 |
-7.292 | |||
________-1.24 |
(6.15)*** |
(4.12)*** | ||||
Observations |
3404 |
3404 |
3404 | |||
Pseudo R2 = |
0.248 |
0.257 |
0.351 | |||
Chi2(2)=29.04 |
Chi2(2) =9.83 |
Chi2(2)=11.78 | ||||
Joint Sign.Land1 |
P = 0.000 |
P = 0.007 |
P = 0.002 | |||
Chi2(2) = 2.89 |
Chi2(2)=16.27 |
Chi2(2)=15.25 | ||||
Joint Sign.Cattle2 |
P = 0.23 |
P=0.000 |
P=0.000 | |||
% of correct predicted probabilities |
87.93% |
88.22% |
96.09% | |||
Robust - statistics in parentheses; * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1% | ||||||
1 Joint significance of land owned and land owned squared. | ||||||
2 Joint significance of cattle owned and cattle owned squared. |
21
More intriguing information
1. Performance - Complexity Comparison of Receivers for a LTE MIMO–OFDM System2. WP 92 - An overview of women's work and employment in Azerbaijan
3. The Modified- Classroom ObservationScheduletoMeasureIntenticnaCommunication( M-COSMIC): EvaluationofReliabilityandValidity
4. An Investigation of transience upon mothers of primary-aged children and their school
5. Subduing High Inflation in Romania. How to Better Monetary and Exchange Rate Mechanisms?
6. Conservation Payments, Liquidity Constraints and Off-Farm Labor: Impact of the Grain for Green Program on Rural Households in China
7. The name is absent
8. Mergers and the changing landscape of commercial banking (Part II)
9. Dementia Care Mapping and Patient-Centred Care in Australian residential homes: An economic evaluation of the CARE Study, CHERE Working Paper 2008/4
10. Ultrametric Distance in Syntax