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- |
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