_________________________________________Table 8_________________________________________
Determinants of participation to different categories of migration at household level (multinomial logit model)
Temporary mig Permanent mig.International mig.
|
Migration-type_____________________________ |
_____________Coef. |
z-stat. |
P-value |
Coef. |
z-stat. |
P-value |
Coef. |
z-stat. |
P-value |
|
Number of males in the hh. |
0.60*** |
4.73 |
0.00 |
0.70*** |
12.49 |
0.00 |
0.90*** |
7.52 |
0.00 |
|
Number of females in the hh. |
0.06 |
0.46 |
0.65 |
0.21 *** |
2.28 |
0.02 |
0.44*** |
4.46 |
0.00 |
|
Number of children in the hh. |
-0.12*** |
-2.94 |
0.00 |
-0.15*** |
-6.76 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
-0.05 |
0.96 |
|
Most educated in the hh |
-0.68*** |
-3.66 |
0.00 |
0.35*** |
4.67 |
0.00 |
0.51 *** |
2.11 |
0.03 |
|
Age of hh. head |
-0.01 |
-0.45 |
0.66 |
0.05 |
1.49 |
0.14 |
-0.01 |
-0.09 |
0.93 |
|
(Age of hh.head)2 |
0.00 |
-0.20 |
0.84 |
0.00 |
-1.47 |
0.14 |
0.00 |
-0.16 |
0.87 |
|
Religion (whether it is Muslim) |
3.02*** |
4.09 |
0.00 |
0.53*** |
2.54 |
0.01 |
1.26*** |
6.50 |
0.00 |
|
Land owned (pae) |
-3.01 *** |
-6.80 |
0.00 |
-1.70 *** |
-2.86 |
0.00 |
2.11** |
1.96 |
0.05 |
|
[Land owned (pae)]2 |
0.73 *** |
6.81 |
0.00 |
0.38*** |
2.30 |
0.02 |
-1.63* |
-1.74 |
0.08 |
|
Cattle owned (pae) |
-0.59*** |
-2.23 |
0.03 |
-2.36*** |
-11.00 |
0.00 |
-3.56*** |
-4.16 |
0.00 |
|
[Cattle owned (pae)]2 |
-0.22 |
-0.70 |
0.48 |
0.98*** |
7.68 |
0.00 |
0.85 |
0.68 |
0.50 |
|
Farm equipment owned |
-0.14 |
-0.63 |
0.53 |
-0.11 |
-0.85 |
0.40 |
-0.05 |
-0.28 |
0.78 |
|
Whether own tubewells |
-0.30 |
-0.50 |
0.62 |
0.50 |
1.28 |
0.20 |
0.78 |
1.47 |
0.14 |
|
N. of hhs. In the ‘bari’ |
0.01 |
0.72 |
0.47 |
0.01 *** |
2.83 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
0.05 |
0.96 |
|
Self-poor assessment |
0.24*** |
3.02 |
0.00 |
-0.13 |
-1.34 |
0.18 |
-1.12*** |
-3.52 |
0.00 |
|
% out-temp. migrants in the village |
10.97*** |
14.58 |
0.00 |
1.96 *** |
4.16 |
0.00 |
2.15*** |
2.93 |
0.00 |
|
% out-perm. migrants in the village |
-6.54*** |
-4.83 |
0.00 |
9.67*** |
5.72 |
0.00 |
5.45*** |
3.05 |
0.00 |
|
% out-intern. migrants in the village |
-4.47*** |
-5.62 |
0.00 |
5.31*** |
3.99 |
0.00 |
17.58*** |
10.00 |
0.00 |
|
Regional dummy |
-2.80*** |
-8.87 |
0.00 |
-0.48 |
-1.23 |
0.22 |
-1.40*** |
-2.60 |
0.01 |
|
Constant |
-2.93*** |
-2.85 |
0.00 |
-6.96*** |
-7.12 |
0.00 |
-8.84*** |
-3.82 |
0.00 |
Pseudo R2 = 0.3144
Joint Sign.Land1: Chi2(6) = 448.96
Prob > chi2 = 0.000
Joint Sign.Cattle2: Chi2( 6) = 4233.00
Prob > chi2 = 0.000
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.
25
More intriguing information
1. Structural Conservation Practices in U.S. Corn Production: Evidence on Environmental Stewardship by Program Participants and Non-Participants2. Hemmnisse für die Vernetzungen von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft abbauen
3. RETAIL SALES: DO THEY MEAN REDUCED EXPENDITURES? GERMAN GROCERY EVIDENCE
4. Visual Artists Between Cultural Demand and Economic Subsistence. Empirical Findings From Berlin.
5. The demand for urban transport: An application of discrete choice model for Cadiz
6. The name is absent
7. Modeling industrial location decisions in U.S. counties
8. The name is absent
9. NATURAL RESOURCE SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: A COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH
10. The name is absent