Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
7993, 2015
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0305-750X/$ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.11.002
1. INTRODUCTION
80
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
81
The remainder of this paper addresses three research questions. First, to what extent do shocks motivate rural household members to move to urban areas? Second, are migrants
in the new urban settings better o in terms of working conditions and quality of life? Third, what is the eect of migration
on rural households welfare and vulnerability to poverty?
3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
(a) Data
The study uses a panel data set that contains information on
a random sample of 2200 households 1 from the three provinces Dak Lak, Thua Thien Hue, and Ha Tinh in Vietnam.
Household data were collected in 2007, 2008, and 2010. The
questionnaires for the household survey covered a broad set
of questions regarding the socio-demographic and economic
conditions of the sampled households. Among others, specic
interest was with the migration experience of the household
and the household members, with the composition of the income source portfolio, with borrowing and lending patterns,
and especially, the exposure to demographic, social, economic,
and agricultural shocks. In addition, village heads were interviewed in 2007 and 2010 in order to collect general information about their village such as village population,
employment structure, infrastructure characteristics, and resource use patterns.
For analyzing the motivations of migration and evaluating
the impacts of migration on household welfare, a migrant
and a migrant household need to be dened. In this paper, a
migrant is a household member having lived outside of the village for at least 1 month in the year 2008 and/or 2010. A migrant household is a household that has at least one migrant in
that period. Since a household member may have migrated out
already in 2007, the household could have benetted from
remittances having an eect on the per capita income variable. To avoid such endogeneity problems, households with
migrants in 2007 are dropped from the sample. 2 The remaining sub-data set consists of about 1711 households. Of these,
443 are migrant households with 890 migrants, including both
ruralrural and ruralurban migrants. Since this paper focuses
on ruralurban migration, the 158 ruralrural migrant households are also dropped from the data set. The remaining 285
ruralurban migrant households are used for the analysis.
Almost 60% of those migrant households have at least one
member who migrated in search of a job, and 33% migrated
for educational reasons. The remaining 8% indicated other
reasons like followed the family or went to help another
household.
In addition to the household survey, a migration survey of
299 migrants is the basis for this study. The migration survey
is a tracking survey in which the respondents are migrant
household members of the surveyed rural households. The migrant status of the household members was determined in a
two-step procedure. First, information from the rural household survey in 2008 was used to construct a list of migrant
household members. Second, the migrant status of the household members was conrmed during the rural household survey in 2010. The respective information was then directly
transmitted to the migrant survey team, which implemented
the migrant survey at the same time in Ho Chi Minh City
and its two surrounding and highly industrialized provinces
Dong Nai and Binh Duong which have the highest rates of
net migration (UNFPA, 2010).
82
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Because the majority of migrants work in the informal sector and frequently change their contact details, the migrant
survey team succeeded in interviewing 299 out of 600 potential
migrant respondents. Questions addressed the migration process, the shocks, risks, and socio-economic situation of migrants in the destination area, and the type and nature of
links between the migrants and their rural households. Among
the 299 interviewed migrants, there are 233 wage-employed, 15
self-employed, and 51 other migrants with irregular jobs. To
measure the employment quality index to quantify the success
of these migrants in the city, only wage-employed migrants are
explored.
(b) Methodology
This paper estimates three basic models, one for each research question. The rst two models involve the estimation
of probit and linear regression specications. The third model
is estimated by means of the propensity score matching and
dierence-in-dierence procedure in order to control for unobservables between migrant and non-migrant households.
(i) Model 1: The migration decision model
In a rst step, a non-linear probability model is estimated
that links the household migration status in 2010 and 2008
to household and village characteristics in 2007, respectively.
The model is dened as in Eqn. (1).
PrDij;2010;2008 1 FXij;2007 ; Zj;2007 ; FEProv :
The dependent variable captures the probability that household i in village j is a migrant household in 2008 and/or
2010. Here, the binary dummy Dij,2010,2008 equals one if household i in village j had at least one migrant household member
in 2008 and/or 2010 and zero otherwise.
The probability of being a migrant household in 2008 and/
or 2010 is a function of observable household characteristics X
in 2007 (i.e., Xij,2007). The vector specically contains information on (1) socio-demographic household factors (HHCij,2007)
such as the gender and education of the household head and
household members and the share of dependent household
members, (2) household wealth (WIij,2007) such as per capita
income, household indebtedness, income sources, or land
holdings, and (3) the households exposure to demographic,
social, economic, or agricultural shocks (SEij,2007). Vector X
of household i in village j is accordingly dened as
Xij;2007 HHCij;2007 ; WIij;2007 ; SEij;2007 :
6
1X
I mk;2010 :
6 k1
The EQI assumes values between zero and one, with employment quality being better for larger values.
Given the specication of the EQI, we dene a linear model
that links the EQI to a set of (1) individual characteristics of
migrant m (MCm,2010) and (2) characteristics of the household i that migrant m belongs to (HHCim,2010). The characteristics of migrants include gender, age, education level, the
length of migration period, the type of job, job characteristics, and the way of getting the job. Household characteristics
cover the loss from shocks that a household might have faced
in 2010 like income loss and asset loss due to shocks (SEim,2010).
Variables related to ethnicity and whether a household
belongs to a political or social organization are also added
to the model. The EQI model is then given as in Eqn. (5).
EQIm;2010 FMCm;2010 ; HHCim;2010 ; SEim;2010 :
VTP12010
where
is the estimated vulnerability to poverty of migrant households in 2010, and VTP02010 the counterfactual vulnerability to poverty which was estimated previously by PSM
procedure.
+Poverty and inequality indices: These include three Foster
GreerThorbecke (FGT) poverty indices and the Theils L and
Theils T inequality indices (Haughton & Khandker, 2009).
The impact of migration on the poverty indices of the migration household are calculated as follows:
DP PE12010 jD 1 PE02010 jD 1;
E12010
where
is the observed per capita expenditure of the migrant household, and E02010 is the counterfactual per capita
expenditure which was estimated previously.
We also measure the impact of migration on poverty and
inequality for the total rural population capturing also synergy
83
10
where IZ12010
and IZ02010 is
84
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 1. Determinants of household migration (probit regression)
Variables
0.143
(0.100)
0.155
(0.143)
0.096
(0.180)
0.178
(0.317)
0.252
(0.342)
0.146*
(0.087)
0.220**
(0.108)
0.249
(0.158)
0.273*
(0.159)
0.392**
(0.190)
0.322
(0.216)
0.146
(0.122)
0.105
(0.143)
0.101
(0.205)
0.016***
(0.003)
0.019***
(0.004)
0.003
(0.007)
0.178***
(0.044)
0.054
(0.054)
0.390***
(0.064)
0.041
(0.039)
0.010
(0.046)
0.191***
(0.062)
0.187*
(0.109)
0.164
(0.139)
0.281
(0.199)
1.553***
(0.216)
1.966***
(0.263)
2.190***
(0.430)
0.042
(0.046)
0.002
(0.048)
0.120*
(0.072)
0.073
(0.087)
0.050
(0.098)
0.262*
(0.147)
0.091***
(0.034)
0.133***
(0.041)
0.031
(0.060)
0.032
(0.098)
0.243**
(0.124)
0.047
(0.186)
0.143
(0.112)
0.151
(0.128)
0.112
(0.181)
0.209***
(0.053)
0.219***
(0.058)
0.102
(0.079)
0.535***
(0.142)
0.517***
(0.183)
0.271
(0.200)
0.253
(0.155)
0.407**
(0.181)
0.062
(0.228)
1.836***
(0.310)
2.225***
(0.329)
2.520***
(0.538)
1432
231,09
0.00
0.16
582.86
1326
177.32
0.00
0.17
387.04
1245
144.28
0.00
0.27
184.47
Dependency ratio
Constant
Number of observations
Wald chi2(18)
Prob > chi2
Pseudo R2
Log pseudolikelihood
Dependents are household members below the age of 10 years and above the age of 65 years. The dependency ratio is the number of dependents relative
to the total number of household members.
85
engaged in migration for employment in comparison to households from the Dak Lak province. 6 Consistent with the argument of UNFPA (2010), this may reect cross-province
dierences in economic development and cross-province dissimilarities in employment prospects and income opportunities. Nevertheless, the results do not show these eects in the
case of migration for education.
(b) Assessing the well-being of migrants in the destination areas
Subjective and objective indicator variables are used to measure the working and living conditions of migrants in urban
areas. These indicator variables are separately reported for migrants who are working in industry, production, and in the
service sector; and for migrants according to the number of
migration years.
According to the subjective indicator variables, the majority
of migrants in industry and production as well as in the service
sector (1) perceive their income to be stable and (2) report
improvements in working and living conditions. Maybe
reecting the eect of exaggerated expectations, migrants with
less than one year of migration experience are least likely to
perceive the outcomes of migration positively. The share of
satised migrants is highest among those with 35 years
of migration experience. For migration periods in excess of
5 years, migrants are again less likely to positively evaluate
working and living conditions.
Considering the objective indicator variables, migrants in
the service sector are more likely to have savings than migrants
in industry and production. This sectoral eect is consistent
with the observation regarding the higher average daily wage
in the service sector (see Appendix Table 7).
In general, only roughly every second migrant has a written
employment contract. The probability of having a written contract increases with the years of migration experience and is
slightly higher for migrants in industry and production. A
written employment contract inuences working and living
conditions as it provides migrants access to social protection
programs (see also GSO & UNFPA, 2005; Oxfam & VASS,
2010; UNFPA, 2010).
Approximately half of the surveyed migrants report income
levels below the sample average. Pointing to the greater vulnerability of recent migrants, below average income levels
are reported by three-quarter of all migrants with less than
one year of migration experience. The share of migrants with
below average income decreases with the number of migration
years, being lowest for the group of migrants with 710 years
of migration experience (21%).
Finally, the indicators from Table 2 are used to construct a
composite employment quality index (EQI) for the sample of
wage-employed migrants, which account for 78% of all migrants in the destination areas. In order to account for possible
dierences in the relative importance of subjective and objective indicator variables, we present three employment quality
indices according to Eqn. (4). These reect the unweighted
average of (1) the three objective migration assessment criteria
(hereafter referred to as objective EQI), (2) the three subjective
migration assessment criteria (hereafter referred to as subjective EQI), and (3) the set of both objective and subjective
assessment criteria (hereafter referred to as aggregate EQI).
The use of subjective and objective indicator variables yields
dierent conclusions regarding the average share of migrants
that is satised with the living and working conditions (see
Appendix Figure 2). Here, the distribution of the subjective
EQI is skewed to the left pointing to a larger share of satised
migrants. It thus appears that it is the environment in general
86
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 2. Migrants working and living conditions by occupation and length of migration period (% of total)
Industry/production sector
13
35
57
710
>10
Subjective assessments
Income is stable
Working conditions have improved
Living conditions have improved
71.7
68.1
85.8
70.6
73.5
86.0
57.6
69.7
69.7
71.7
60.4
83.0
86.7
75.0
91.7
78.9
73.7
86.8
61.8
70.6
85.3
60.0
73.3
100.0
Average
75.2
76.7
65.7
71.7
84.5
79.8
72.6
77.8
Objective assessments
Migrant has accumulated savings
Migrants with above average income
Migrants have written employment contract
31.9
52.2
55.8
50.0
51.5
47.8
45.5
24.2
48.5
22.6
37.7
45.3
45.0
60.0
51.7
36.8
68.4
68.4
52.9
79.4
55.9
73.3
73.3
66.7
Average
46.6
49.8
39.4
35.2
52.2
57.9
62.7
71.1
Note: Regardless of the choice of indicator variable, the number of observations equals 233.
Source: Own calculations based on the DFG Migrant Survey 2010.
*
The subjective indicator variables reect perceptions as reported by migrants.
Average income is computed across all migrants with employment in either the industry and production or service sector.
(1)
(2)
0.020
(0.005)
0.019
(0.005)
0.021***
(0.005)
0.160***
(0.039)
0.158***
(0.040)
0.141***
(0.041)
0.008
(0.046)
0.002
(0.046)
0.006
(0.047)
Age (years)
0.018***
(0.005)
0.024***
(0.004)
0.033*
(0.018)
0.030
(0.041)
0.029
(0.041)
0.020
(0.042)
0.040
(0.055)
0.032
(0.054)
0.062
(0.055)
0.062
(0.042)
0.061
(0.043)
0.061
(0.043)
0.018
(0.095)
0.046
(0.098)
0.045
(0.090)
0.023
(0.155)
0.026
(0.156)
0.030
(0.161)
0.000*
(0.000)
0.000**
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
Constant
0.282
(0.216)
0.345
(0.218)
0.016
(0.197)
228
0.000
0.211
228
0.000
0.202
228
0.000
0.171
Number of observations
Prob > F
Adjusted R2
***
(3)
***
0.071***
(0.014)
87
objective EQI. Having to pay for a job does not seem to guarantee a higher objective EQI as indicated by the negative sign.
The gender eect reects the fact that women have more stable and predictable working relations. Indeed, around 60% of
the female migrants have a job with a written contract, as
compared to 40% of the male migrants. The gender eect
may also reect the dierent spending behavior. In fact, the
descriptive information conrms that female migrants generally have higher savings than their male counterparts. The gender eect, however, does not reect above average incomes, as
women are paid lower salaries as compared to men.
In general, the types of jobs being conducted by female and
male migrants in the city are very diverse. 54% of all women
work in industry/production, mainly in weaving, but also in
textile and electronics factories that are more likely to provide
written contracts and stable employment. The remaining 46%
women work in the service sector in jobs like as accountant in
banks (14%), tailor (7%), waiter, sales person, hair dresser, or
cleaner/housemaid. In comparison, only 37% of all men work
in industry/production, including the weaving sector (12%)
and to a very small extent electronics and textiles factories.
Otherwise, men are more likely to be employed in the service
Treatment
Control
General migration
Income growth (Kernel)
Income growth (Nearest-Neighborhood)
0.56
0.55
0.36
0.28
0.20*(0.09)
0.27*(0.11)
0.56
0.55
0.37
0.43
0.19*(0.09)
0.12(0.12)
0.88
0.40
0.17
0.54
0.28
0.08
0.34*(0.14)
0.12(0.14)
0.09(0.15)
Standard errors (in parentheses) are bootstrapped using 1000 replications of the sample. Estimates are derived by means of the dierence-in-dierences
matching technique based on propensity score matching.
Source: Own calculations based on the DFG Rural Household Survey 2007, 2008 and 2010.
a
These are calculated under all migration.
*
Denotes the statistical signicance at the 10% level.
Table 5. Dierence-in-dierence estimates of the impact of migration on vulnerability to poverty, poverty, and inequality in 2010
Outcome variable
Treatment
Control
Migrant household
Vulnerability to poverty (VTP)
Head count index (P0)
Poverty gap index (P1)
Poverty severity (P2)
0.21
0.21
0.05
0.02
0.22
0.26
0.07
0.03
0.01(0.02)
0.05*(0.03)
0.02*(0.01)
0.01*(0.00)
Whole sample
Vulnerability to poverty (VTP)
Head count index (P0)
Poverty gap index (P1)
Poverty severity (P2)
Theils L
Theils T
0.29
0.32
0.09
0.04
0.18
0.19
0.30
0.33
0.1
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.01(0.00)
0.01*(0.01)
0.01*(0.00)
0.00*(0.00)
ns
ns
ns, not signicant. Standard errors (in parentheses) are bootstrapped using 1000 replications of the sample. Estimates are derived by means of the
dierence-in-dierences matching technique based on propensity score matching.
Source: Own calculations based on the DFG Rural Household Survey 2007, 2008 and 2010.
*
Denotes the statistical signicance at the 10% level.
88
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
specications with propensity score matching techniques suggest that migrant households directly benet from migration,
especially migration for employment, through positive
income growth eects. These eects help not only migrant
households moving out of poverty, but they also improve
the poverty situation in rural areas in general. Thus, also nonmigrant households seem to indirectly benet from remittances
89
NOTES
1. See Hardeweg and Waibel (2009) for details on the data collection
procedure.
2. Any remaining potential endogeneity problems are considered to be
fairly small due to the following reasons: (i) 50% of all households have
migrants of only up to three years, and only 20% of all households
have members who migrated for a longer time period (>7 years). Thus,
the share of households with migrants prior to 2007 that may have
benetted from remittances is relatively small. (ii) It might take a
transition period of a few years for a migrant to settle down in the new
place of destination so that remittances only arise after such a
transition period. (iii) In our data set, only half of all migrants have
actually sent remittances.
3. Alternative specications control for the correlation of dierent
types of shocks and of wealth variables. For instance, the per capita
income correlates with the type of household activities, so that
model (1) was separately estimated for each of these wealth
variables.
REFERENCES
Agesa, R. U., & Kim, S. (2001). Rural to urban migration as a household
decision: Evidence from Kenya. Review of Development Economics,
5(1), 6075.
Akay, A., Bargain, O., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2011). Relative concerns of
rural-to-urban migrants in China. Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 81, 421441.
Amare, M., Hohfeld, L., & Waibel, H. (2012). Ruralurban migration and
employment quality: A case study from Thailand. Asian Development
Review, 29(1), 5880.
Azam, J. P., & Gubert, F. (2006). Migrants remittances and the
household in Africa: A review of evidence. Journal of African
Economies, 15(2), 426462.
Chaudhuri, S. (2003). Assessing vulnerability to poverty: Concepts,
empirical methods and illustrative examples. Department of Economics,
Columbia University, <http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/
97185/Keny_0304/Ke_0304/vulnerability-assessment.pdf> Accessed
May 2011.
Cu, C. L. (2005). Rural to urban migration in Vietnam. In H. T. Ha, & S.
Sakata (Eds.). Impact of socio-economic changes on the livelihoods of
people living in poverty in Vietnam (ASDP 71, pp. 115143). Institute of
Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.
Dang, N. A., Tacoli, C., & Hoang, X. T. (2003). Migration in Vietnam: A
review of information on current trends and patterns, and their policy
implications. Paper presented at the Regional Conference on Migration,
Development and Pro-Poor Policy Choices in Asia, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
De Brauw, A., & Harigaya, T. (2007). Seasonal migration and improving
living standards in Vietnam. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(2), 430447.
Dercon, S. (2002). Income risk, coping strategies and safety nets, Discussion
paper, 22. Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economics
Research, United Nations University (UNU-WIDER).
Ezra, M. (2001). Ecological degradation, rural poverty, and migration in
Ethiopia: A contextual analysis, Working Paper, 149. New York:
Population Council, Policy Research Division.
Fuente, A. D. L. (2010). Remittances and vulnerability to poverty in rural
Mexico. Journal of World Development, 38(6), 828839.
90
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Le, B. D., Tran, G. L., & Nguyen, T. T. P. (2011). Social protection for
ruralurban migrants in Vietnam: Current situation, challenges and
opportunities, Research report, 08. Sussex, UK: Centre for Social
Protection, Institute of Development Studies.
Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 47, 4956.
Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56(1), 326.
Mincer, J. (1978). Family migration decisions. The Journal of Political
Economy, 86(5), 749773.
Ministry of Finance. (2010). The agriculture insurance pilot program in
Vietnam.
Newman, C., & Wainwright, F. (2011). Income shocks and household riskcoping strategies: Evidence from Rural Vietnam, Discussion paper no.
358. Institute for International Integration Studies, <http://
www.tcd.ie/iiis/documents/discussion/pdfs/iiisdp358.pdf>
Assessed
April 2012.
Nguyen, V. C., Den Berg, M. V., & Lensink, R. (2009). The impact of
working migration and non-working migration on household welfare,
poverty and inequality: New evidence from Vietnam. Asia-Pacic
Development Journal, 16(1), 5992.
Nguyen, N. P., Tran, N. T. M. T., Nguyen, T. N., & Oostendorp, R.
(2008). Determinants and impacts of migration in Vietnam, Working
paper 01. Development and Policies Research Center (DEPOCEN),
<http://depocenwp.org/upload/pubs/TranNgoMinhTam/Determinants
%20and%20Impacts%20of%20Migration%20in%20Vietnam_DEPOCENWP.pdf> Assessed October 2011.
Niimi, Y., Pham, T. H., & Reilly, B. (2009). Determinants of remittances:
Recent evidence using data on internal migrants in Vietnam. Asian
Economic Journal, 23(1), 1939.
Oxfam & Vietnam Academic of Social Science (Oxfam and VASS) (2010).
The Impacts of the global economic crisis on migration patterns in
Vietnam: Findings from rapid assessments in ve provinces and cities,
Research report. Oxfam GB Publisher, <http://policy-practice.oxfam.
org.uk/publications/download?Id=364515anddl=http://oxfamilibrary.
openrepository.com/oxfam/bitstream/10546/112523/1/rr-impacts-globaleconomic-crisis-migration-patterns-vietnam-230210-en.pdf> Assessed
November 2011.
Phung, D. T., & Waibel, H. (2009). Diversication, risk management and
risk coping strategies: Evidence from rural households in three
Provinces in Vietnam: Paper no. 25. In: Proceedings of the German
development economics conference, Frankfurt, Germany.
Pincus, J., & Sender, J. (2008). Quantifying poverty in Vietnam: Who
counts?. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 3(1), 114150, <http://
www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/vs.2008.3.1.108> Assessed November,
2012.
Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical
Society of London, 48(2), 167235.
Ravenstein, E. G. (1889). The laws of migration. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, 52(2), 241310.
Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, R. (1983). The central role of the propensity
score in observational studies for causal eect. Biometrika, 70(1),
4145.
APPENDIX
Figure 1. Natural disaster loss and govt budget for disaster prevention.
91
Obs*
Mean**
Std. Dev.
Min
Max
1432
1432
1432
0.19
0.10
0.04
0.39
0.31
0.21
0
0
0
1
1
1
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
0.42
0.04
0.25
0.07
0.17
47.23
0.31
0.65
1.76
0.68
4.07
0.50
2.38
0.69
0.48
2.31
0.31
0.35
0.34
0.49
0.21
0.43
0.26
0.37
14.62
0.28
0.92
1.30
0.47
1.02
0.50
1.37
0.46
0.50
0.86
0.46
0.48
0.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.49
0
8.01
0
0
1.61
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
91
1
6
8
1
6.80
1
2.02
1
1
4.32
1
1
1
Source: Own calculations based on the DFG Migrant Survey 2010, DFG Rural Village Survey 2007, and the DFG Rural Household Survey 2007, 2008
and 2010.
*
121 observations had been dropped to control outliners.
**
For binary variables, the mean refers to the share of migrants for which the dummy is equal to 1.
37.7
52.8
7.5
1.9
44.1
66.7
65.1
41.7
33.1
15.7
9.4
56.2
66.7
76.2
39.9
42.1
12.0
6.0
51.3
66.7
71.2
92
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Subjective EQI
30
40
10
20
60
40
20
80
50
100
Objective EQI
-.5
.5
EQI
-.5
1.5
.5
EQI
1.5
10
Percent
20
30
Aggregate EQI
.2
.4
.6
.8
EQI
Source:
Obs*
Mean**
Std. dev.
Min
Max
Dependent variable
Objective EQI
228
0.50
0.33
Migrant characteristics
Years of schooling
Female migrant (1-yes; 0-no)
Debt (1-yes; 0-no)
Age (years)
Job in service sector (1-yes, 0-no)
Length of migration period (Years)
Pay to get a job (1-yes; 0-no)
How to nd a job (1-Introduced from friends or relatives; 0-Others)
228
228
228
228
228
228
228
228
10.72
0.53
0.31
23.98
0.54
3.11
0.82
0.33
3.82
0.50
0.46
5.02
0.50
1.44
0.39
0.47
1
0
0
14
0
1
0
0
19
1
1
47
1
6
1
1
Household characteristics
Ethnicity (1-Kinh, Hoa; 0-Others)
HH members belong to political or social organization (1-yes, 0-no)
Income loss from shocks (2005 $ PPP)
228
228
228
0.96
0.97
207.11
0.18
0.17
543.79
0
0
0
1
1
4510.38
Source: Own calculations based on the DFG Migrant Survey 2010 and DFG Rural Household Survey 2010.
*
Fifteen cases had been dropped from the analysis.
**
For binary variables, the mean refers to the share of migrants for which the dummy is equal to 1.
93
2007
Non-poor
Poor
Total
Non-poor
Poor
Total
156
57
213
17
38
55
173
95
268
Non-vulnerability
Vulnerability
Total
188
38
226
12
30
42
200
68
268
2010
2007
Non-vulnerability
Vulnerability
Total
Source: Own calculations based on the DFG Rural Household Survey 2007, 2008 and 2010.
ScienceDirect