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. Evolutionary Clustering in Indonesian Ethnic Textile Motifs2. The name is absent
3. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi
4. Conflict and Uncertainty: A Dynamic Approach
5. The Impact of Financial Openness on Economic Integration: Evidence from the Europe and the Cis
6. ARE VOLATILITY EXPECTATIONS CHARACTERIZED BY REGIME SHIFTS? EVIDENCE FROM IMPLIED VOLATILITY INDICES
7. An alternative way to model merit good arguments
8. Death as a Fateful Moment? The Reflexive Individual and Scottish Funeral Practices
9. Estimated Open Economy New Keynesian Phillips Curves for the G7
10. The Complexity Era in Economics