_________________________________________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. Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models2. The name is absent
3. Spectral density bandwith choice and prewightening in the estimation of heteroskadasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrices in panel data models
4. Personal Experience: A Most Vicious and Limited Circle!? On the Role of Entrepreneurial Experience for Firm Survival
5. Migration and Technological Change in Rural Households: Complements or Substitutes?
6. The name is absent
7. Input-Output Analysis, Linear Programming and Modified Multipliers
8. The Cost of Food Safety Technologies in the Meat and Poultry Industries.
9. The name is absent
10. Developmental Robots - A New Paradigm