_________________________________________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. The Global Dimension to Fiscal Sustainability2. The Economic Value of Basin Protection to Improve the Quality and Reliability of Potable Water Supply: Some Evidence from Ecuador
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Behavioural Characteristics and Financial Distress
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. IMPACTS OF EPA DAIRY WASTE REGULATIONS ON FARM PROFITABILITY
10. WP 1 - The first part-time economy in the world. Does it work?