Migration and Technological Change in Rural Households: Complements or Substitutes?



Table A.2: Impact of different typologies of migration on HYVs adoption

(1)

(2)____________

(3)

(4)

(5)

Estimator:

ivprob-

coeff._______

ivprob-

marg. effects

3sls

2sls

________________________________________________________ι

2sls-
robust s.e.

Temporary migration

-0.963

-0.226

-0.23

-0.214

-0.214

(2.05)**

(2.05)**

(1.98)**

(1.80)*

(1.76)*

Permanent migration

-1.509

-0.293

-0.269

-0.309

-0.309

(3.65)***

(3.65)***

(2.69)***

(3.02)***

(2.85)***

International migration

2.68

0.554

0.577

0.509

0.509

(3.32)***

(3.32)***

(2.93)***

(2.52)**

(2.32)**

Number of males in the hh.

0.07

0.022

0.015

0.019

0.019

(1.82)*

(1.82)*

-1.56

(1.95)*

(1.77)*

Number of females in the hh.

-0.008

-0.003

-0.005

-0.001

-0.001

-0.18

-0.18

-0.41

-0.07

-0.07

Number of children in the hh.

0.042

0.013

0.012

0.013

0.013

(2.06)**

(2.06)**

(2.29)**

(2.54)**

(2.47)**

Average years of schooling in the

hh.

0.005

0.002

-0.001

0.001

0.001

-0.28

-0.28

-0.11

-0.2

-0.19

Percentage of land owned

0.03

0.009

0.004

0.016

0.016

-0.6

-0.6

-0.59

(2.02)**

(2.60)***

Amount of land operated

0.47

0.15

0.144

0.156

0.156

(4.66)***

(4.66)***

(6.08)***

(6.14)***

(4.82)***

Percentage of temple land

-0.079

-0.025

-0.026

-0.028

-0.028

-1.57

-1.57

(2.12)**

(2.16)**

-1.21

Percentage of cash-in land

-0.046

-0.015

0.003

-0.015

-0.015

-0.19

-0.19

-0.06

-0.23

-0.21

Percentage of mortgaged-out land

-0.616

-0.197

-0.056

-0.113

-0.113

(4.36)***

(4.36)***

(2.05)**

(3.92)***

(3.60)***

Cattle owned (pae)

0.365

0.117

0.117

0.108

0.108

(3.85)***

(3.85)***

(4.61)***

(4.22)***

(3.74)***

Farm equipment owned

-0.008

-0.002

0.008

0.004

0.004

-0.19

-0.19

-0.78

-0.36

-0.27

Power means of ploughing

0.086

0.028

0.038

0.03

0.03

-1.34

-1.34

(2.45)**

(1.80)*

(1.75)*

Land-labor ratio

-0.283

-0.09

-0.059

-0.071

-0.071

(2.40)**

(2.40)**

(2.16)**

(2.53)**

(2.44)**

Whether own pond

0.224

0.072

0.064

0.054

0.054

(2.60)***

(2.60)***

(3.27)***

(2.56)**

(2.71)***

Self-poor assessment

-0.211

-0.067

-0.071

-0.073

-0.073

(2.90)***

(2.90)***

(3.80)***

(3.87)***

(3.84)***

Region dummy

0.345

0.111

0.133

0.121

0.121

(2.37)**

(2.37)**

(3.69)***

(3.27)***

(3.20)***

Percentage of irrigated land

1.029

0.328

0.286

0.286

0.286

(10.46)***

(10.46)***

(12.13)***

(11.20)***

(11.10)***

Constant

-1.442

0.036

0.038

0.038

(7.34)***

-0.73

-0.77

-0.73

Observations_____________________

_______3404

_________3404

_______3404

3404

_______3404

Absolute value of z statistics in parentheses (robust in model (5) accounting for potential heteroscedasticity)
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%

41



More intriguing information

1. Reform of the EU Sugar Regime: Impacts on Sugar Production in Ireland
2. Imperfect competition and congestion in the City
3. Passing the burden: corporate tax incidence in open economies
4. Nietzsche, immortality, singularity and eternal recurrence1
5. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
6. Learning and Endogenous Business Cycles in a Standard Growth Model
7. The name is absent
8. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi
9. Giant intra-abdominal hydatid cysts with multivisceral locations
10. The name is absent