TABLE 9
Percentage Change in the Odds-ratio of typologies of migration at household level
Variable: b z P>|z| % %StdX
Most educated in the hh
|
permanen-temporar |
1.03 |
7.94 |
0.00 |
179.40 |
118.90 |
|
permanen-internat |
-0.16 |
-0.60 |
0.55 |
-14.70 |
-11.40 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
0.35 |
4.67 |
0.00 |
42.10 |
30.80 |
|
internat-temporar |
1.19 |
3.17 |
0.00 |
227.30 |
147.00 |
|
internat-no_mig |
0.51 |
2.11 |
0.03 |
66.50 |
47.50 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
0.68 |
3.66 |
0.00 |
96.60 |
67.40 |
|
Land owned (pae) | |||||
|
permanen-temporar |
1.31 |
2.08 |
0.04 |
269.20 |
42.50 |
|
permanen-internat |
-3.80 |
-4.28 |
0.00 |
-97.80 |
-64.30 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
-1.70 |
-2.86 |
0.00 |
-81.70 |
-36.90 |
|
internat-temporar |
5.11 |
6.53 |
0.00 16481.00 |
299.40 | |
|
internat-no_mig |
2.11 |
1.96 |
0.05 |
720.80 |
76.90 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
3.01 |
6.80 |
0.00 |
1920.20 |
125.80 |
|
Cattle owned (pae) | |||||
|
permanen-temporar |
-1.77 |
-6.31 |
0.00 |
-83.00 |
-46.60 |
|
permanen-internat |
1.19 |
1.20 |
0.23 |
230.30 |
52.60 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
-2.36 |
-11.00 |
0.00 |
-90.60 |
-56.60 |
|
internat-temporar |
-2.97 |
-3.08 |
0.00 |
-94.90 |
-65.00 |
|
internat-no_mig |
-3.56 |
-4.16 |
0.00 |
-97.20 |
-71.60 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
0.59 |
2.23 |
0.03 |
80.80 |
23.30 |
|
Self_poor assess. | |||||
|
permanen-temporar |
-0.37 |
-6.46 |
0.00 |
-31.10 |
-17.00 |
|
permanen-internat |
0.99 |
3.97 |
0.00 |
168.60 |
63.90 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
-0.13 |
-1.34 |
0.18 |
-12.40 |
-6.40 |
|
internat-temporar |
-1.36 |
-4.82 |
0.00 |
-74.30 |
-49.30 |
|
internat-no_mig |
-1.12 |
-3.52 |
0.00 |
-67.40 |
-42.90 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
-0.24 |
-3.02 |
0.00 |
-21.30 |
-11.30 |
b = raw coefficient
z = z-score for test of b=0
P>|z| = p-value for z-test
% = percent change in odds for unit increase in X
%StdX = percent change in odds for SD increase in X
For example, the effect of a unit change in education of the highest educated household
member increases the odds of permanent moving relative to the non-migration and temporary
migration categories (by 42.1 and 179.4 percent respectively), but it decreases the odds ratio
with respect to international migration (by 16.5 percent), holding all the other variables
constant. Moreover, a unit more of land (per adult equivalent) has the effect of decreasing the
odds ratio between non-migration category and all the other categories, with the exception of
international migration (whose odd ratio is on turn always increased by a unit positive change
of land). Thus, household ‘structural’ variables (wealth and social status), as well as human
28
More intriguing information
1. REVITALIZING FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE2. Program Semantics and Classical Logic
3. The Role of Immigration in Sustaining the Social Security System: A Political Economy Approach
4. The name is absent
5. Solidaristic Wage Bargaining
6. The name is absent
7. GROWTH, UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE WAGE SETTING PROCESS.
8. Labour Market Flexibility and Regional Unemployment Rate Dynamics: Spain (1980-1995)
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent