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. ANTI-COMPETITIVE FINANCIAL CONTRACTING: THE DESIGN OF FINANCIAL CLAIMS.
2. AN ANALYTICAL METHOD TO CALCULATE THE ERGODIC AND DIFFERENCE MATRICES OF THE DISCOUNTED MARKOV DECISION PROCESSES
3. Wirtschaftslage und Reformprozesse in Estland, Lettland, und Litauen: Bericht 2001
4. The Value of Cultural Heritage Sites in Armenia: Evidence From a Travel Cost Method Study
5. International Financial Integration*
6. The name is absent
7. Une Classe de Concepts
8. Rural-Urban Economic Disparities among China’s Elderly
9. Assessing Economic Complexity with Input-Output Based Measures
10. DISCUSSION: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF EMERGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES