1 / 14

Is there such a thing as Migration of Poverty in Albania?

Is there such a thing as Migration of Poverty in Albania?. Jessica Hagen-Zanker Carlo Azzarri. ABCDE Conference Tirana, June 10-11, 2008. Introduction. Migration most important social, political & economic phenomenon in Albania since 1990 Internal migration also important, but understudied

bunny
Download Presentation

Is there such a thing as Migration of Poverty in Albania?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is there such a thing as Migration of Poverty in Albania? Jessica Hagen-Zanker Carlo Azzarri ABCDE Conference Tirana, June 10-11, 2008

  2. Introduction • Migration most important social, political & economic phenomenon in Albania since 1990 • Internal migration also important, but understudied • Internal migration mainly rural to urban/peri-urban areas • In ‘90s urban population increased by 14%, but not much known on living conditions of migrants  What is the impact of internal migration on migrant households? • Since 1990 poverty decreases, especially in rural  Has poverty relocated from rural to urban areas?

  3. Novelty of the paper • Focus on impact ofinternal migration • Albania as quasi-experimental case: no internal or international migration before 1990 • Unique dataset • Households over-sampled in peri-urban areas • Retrospective information on migration • Information on households in 1990 (controls)

  4. Data • Data • LSMS 2005 (nationally representative) • 3840 households • 200 peri-urban households oversampled • Groups • RNM = Rural household, head did not migrate internally • PNM = Peri-urban household, head did not migrate internally • PM = Peri-urban household, head did migrate internally

  5. Descriptive statistics I • Migrants to peri-urban younger & less educated • Migrants to peri-urban more likely to be unemployed & working fewer hours • Employed in casual construction sector • Rural households with more international migrants than peri-urban  specialization?

  6. Descriptive statistics II: Income and consumption RNM = Rural household, head did not migrate internally PNM = Peri-urban household, head did not migrate internally PM = Peri-urban household, head did migrate internally

  7. Descriptive statistics III • Peri-urban migrants show worse housing condition, both compared to rural non-migrant households & own situation in 1990 (in terms of house type, number of rooms, water access & quality) • Peri-urban migrant children least likely to be sent to primary school (70%) & as unlikely to secondary school as rural households (33%) • Schools far • Teenagers work as much as in rural areas • Households do not consider education as important as peri-urban non-migrants do

  8. Descriptive statistics IV • Comparison over time (whether moved 90-94, 95-99, 00-04) • Internal migrants move for different reasons 1) Pioneers: to improve life  more likely to send children to school 2) Crisis movers: out of need (pyramid savings scheme crisis)  poor housing & employment 3) Followers: to make money  highest income gains • Different expectations  different impacts

  9. Econometric analysis • Aim: measuring impact of internal migration on outcome of interest (e.g. income) Two Solutions: • Propensity Score Matching Compare peri-urban internal migrant households to very similar non-migrant rural household • Instrumental Variable Analysis Replace explanatory variable with another variable (IV) correlated with explanatory variable only

  10. Confirms descriptive statistics Propensity Score Matching Results ATT=Average treatment effect for treated; ATU=Average treatment effect for un-treated ATE=Average treatment effect for population

  11. Instrumental Variables • Instrumental variables used: • Wealth in 1990  influences decision to move, but unlikely to affect current income due to the rapid changes that took place in Albania 2) Housing variables 1990  impacts decision to move, but not current income

  12. Instrumental Variables Results Dependent variable: Log income per capita • All the tests successful, although instruments could be stronger Treat_year= number of years since the household has moved, 0 for rural non-movers Other explanatory variables omitted for space reason

  13. Conclusions • Migrants are better off in terms of income • In peri-urban monetary poverty amongst migrants still high compared to non-migrants  migration of poverty? • Migrants are worse off in terms of housing, education, health, access to utilities, access to stable employment Living expenses increase > income gain

  14. Faleminderit!

More Related