1 Migration and Remittances in Emerging Market Economies of Southeast Asia: Do they Offer Paths for Structural Poverty Transitions? Arnoldshain Seminar XI “Migration, Development, & Demographic Change – Problems, Consequences, Solutions” Mulubrhan Amare (with Herman Waibel & Lena Hohfeld ) Institute of Development and Agricultural Economics, School of Economics & Management, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany
29
Embed
1 Migration and Remittances in Emerging Market Economies of Southeast Asia: Do they Offer Paths for Structural Poverty Transitions? Arnoldshain Seminar.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Migration and Remittances in Emerging Market Economies of
Southeast Asia: Do they Offer Paths for Structural Poverty
Coefficients as of attributable difference [C/(C + E)] 96 110.12
For Vietnam
Remittances (not migration) has significant impact in explaining asset
accumulation overtime
Structural poor migrant households with remittances experience higher
growth in asset
Remittances increase rural wellbeing by increasing productivity and
endowment effect to some extent
Shocks, limited accessibility of infrastructure facilities & ethnicity hinder
asset accumulation overtime
19Background Objectives Conceptual framework Data Econometric Approach Results Conclusions
Results & discussions
For Thailand
Migration & remittances hinder rural households to accumulate assets &
escape from poverty
Migration & remittances decrease asset accumulation for structural poor
households,
It offsets the tendency of poor households to climb out of poverty
& catch-up to their better-off neighbors.
Shocks, limited accessibility of infrastructure facilities & gender offset
the tendency toward convergence
20Background Objectives Conceptual framework Data Econometric Approach Conclusions
Results & discussions
1. Poor households are more likely to migrate & receive remittances, but
tend to have low quality and return employment
2. Rapid & continuing out-migration of younger household members
increase labor constraints
3. Households receiving remittances tend to be structurally poor
households because they spend remittances for consumption purpose
Conclusions
21Background Objectives Conceptual framework Data Econometric Approach Conclusions
Policy recommendations
1. Migration & remittances increase productivity.
2. However, not all migration decisions lead to the expected success
3. High rates out-migration of young households members can result in
i. a decline in production & productivity in rural areas,
ii. bad employment in urban areas
Inequality in rural areas may continue growing
Conclusions
22Background Objectives Conceptual framework Data Econometric Approach Conclusions
Thank you for your attention
23
24
Variable Per capita inc. Annual per capita income (US$ PPP at 2005 prices) 1428.68
(861.35)Household & social capital HH-size Total household size 4.38(1.76)Children Proportion of children in household less than 15 0.24(0.22)Elderly Proportion of elderly in household above 60 0.10(0.23)Age Age of the household head 47.40(15.64)Mean edu. Average years of schooling of adult members 7.86(3.42)Primary Proportion of adult completed primary school 0.26(0.24)High school Proportion of adult completed high school 0.20(0.22)Professional Proportion of adult completed professional education 0.55(0.27)Gender Gender of the head (male headed =1, female headed =0) 0.77Ethnic Major ethnic Kinh & Hoa (=1), others(=0) 0.79Membership Any household member involved in political or social organization
(yes=1, no=0)0.87
Off-farm Participated in off-farm activities (yes=1, no=0) 0.52Self emp. Own small & medium scale enterprise (yes=1, no=0) 0.25
Description & Summary Statistics of Panel Variables (N = 6318)
25
Description & Summary Statistics of Panel Variables (N = 6318)
Physical & natural capital measured in US$ PPP at 2005 prices in hundreds Agric. tools Value of agricultural tools owned 4.08(10.37)Transp. tools Value of transportation tools owned 10.70(29.54)L& Land size owned, in hectares 0.78(1.12)Livestock Value of livestock owned 8.11(25.88)Own house Value of house owned 102.22(158.17)House utilities Value of house utilities owned 10.08(19.66)Asset shock severity Low Experienced less sever (yes=1, no=1) 0.01Medium Experienced medium sever (yes=1, no=1) 0.09Highly Experienced highly sever (yes=1, no=1) 0.27Income shock severity Low Households experienced less sever (yes=1, no=0) 0.17Medium Households experienced medium sever (yes=1, no=0) 0.17Highly Households experienced highly sever (yes=1, no=0) 0.47
26
Description & Summary Statistics of Panel Variables (N = 6318)
Coping measures in responses to shocks Forest extrac. Depend on forest extraction (yes=1, no=0) 0.14Diversify agric. Diversifying agricultural profile (yes=1, no=0) 0.06Drawing assets Drawing drawn assets (yes=1, no=0) 0.13Lending informal Lent money from informal (yes=1, no=0) 0.17Public transfer Participated in public transfer (yes=1, no=0) 0.12Reduce cons. Reduced consumption (number of meals) (yes=1, no=0) 0.67Geographical capital at village level Paved road The village has paved road (yes=1, no=0) 0.55Mountainous The village is located in mountainous (yes=1, no=0) 0.48Main transp. Main transportation of the village is bus or motorcycle (yes=1,
no=0)0.58
Violence The village experienced violence (yes=1, no=0) 0.17Epidemics The village experienced epidemics (yes=1, no=0) 0.11Water supply The proportion of households with public water supply in the village 0.23Irrigated Total irrigated land in the village 13.01(24.21)No. of enterp. Number of enterprises who have more than 9 employees 0.17(1.64)HHs elect. The proportion of households with electricity in the village 92.31(22.65)HHs sanit. The proportion of households with sanitation in the village 18.20(31.53)Time to market Time to reach nearest market in minute 22.57(24.37)Time to bank Time to nearest bank market in minute 35.69(31.19)
20082007 Poor Non-poorPoor Twice poor 14 Rising from poverty 14 Stochastically poor 57 Stochastically mobile 65 Structurally poor 43 Structurally mobile 35Non-poor Declining into poverty 5 Twice nonpoor 67 Stochastically mobile 76 Structurally nonpoor 100 Structurally mobile 24 2010 2008 Poor Non-poorPoor Twice poor 10 Rising from poverty 9 Stochastically poor 55 Stochastically mobile 75 Structurally poor 45 Structurally mobile 25Non-poor Declining into poverty 7 Twice nonpoor 74 Stochastically mobile 50 Structurally nonpoor 100 Structurally mobile 50