_________________________________________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. Modellgestützte Politikberatung im Naturschutz: Zur „optimalen“ Flächennutzung in der Agrarlandschaft des Biosphärenreservates „Mittlere Elbe“2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Altruism and fairness in a public pension system
5. Tax Increment Financing for Optimal Open Space Preservation: an Economic Inquiry
6. he Effect of Phosphorylation on the Electron Capture Dissociation of Peptide Ions
7. Evaluating Consumer Usage of Nutritional Labeling: The Influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics
8. Text of a letter
9. Les freins culturels à l'adoption des IFRS en Europe : une analyse du cas français
10. Connectionism, Analogicity and Mental Content