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
More intriguing information
1. ARE VOLATILITY EXPECTATIONS CHARACTERIZED BY REGIME SHIFTS? EVIDENCE FROM IMPLIED VOLATILITY INDICES2. PEER-REVIEWED FINAL EDITED VERSION OF ARTICLE PRIOR TO PUBLICATION
3. he Effect of Phosphorylation on the Electron Capture Dissociation of Peptide Ions
4. Staying on the Dole
5. Computational Experiments with the Fuzzy Love and Romance
6. The name is absent
7. Healthy state, worried workers: North Carolina in the world economy
8. The name is absent
9. Multi-Agent System Interaction in Integrated SCM
10. The name is absent