Return Migration When Savings Differ

LAURA HUNTOON* Indiana University

ABSTRACT Continuing immigration of low wage and low skill workers to more developed countries from less developed regions of the world has become an issue of policy debate. Host countries which do not view themselves as countries of immigration are eager to develop incentives which forestall migrants from becoming permanent residents. This paper reports that return migrants with savings have a higher probability of settling in birthplace regions, which tend to be lagging and less developed regions. Policies which encourage savings among migrants are likely to encourage return migration which is spread across regions of outmigration rather than concentrated in major urban areas. Without savings, the rate of return to less developed regions would be extremely low, demonstrating the importance of savings to a pattern of balanced return migration.

T h e accumulation of assets by migrant workers may be one way to increase the likelihood of return migration to countries of origin. Understanding international return migration is important because the movement of migrants not only affects their own well-being, but also may affect levels of local development and returns to local capital. Migrants with savings to invest in their own communities can contribute to the development of peripheral areas, a crucial issue for developing as well as developed nations. Two related issues are the focus of this paper: how asset accumulation modifies the return destinations of migrants and the contribution which asset accumulation may make to peripheral, capital-poor regions.

The higher likelihood of return to peripheral origin regions by migrants with savings is clear from the analysis of data on returned Spanish migrants presented here. Analyzing the probability of return by region provides a measure of the attractiveness of low growth outmigration regions v. high growth centers in the country of origin as a function of migrant characteristics. Savings and the ability to accumulate assets

*Direct all correspondence to: Laura Huntoon, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, BusinesslSPEA Building 4066, Indiana University, 801 West Michigan St., Indianapolis, IN 46202-5152.

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 17, Number 3, pages 219-239. Copyright @ 1995 by JAI Press h e . All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0735-2166.

220 I JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I Vol. 17/No. 31995

by individual migrants make low growth outmigration regions more attractive as return destinations. If accumulated assets make it more likely that a migrant will return to a peripheral region of outmigration, then it is possible that return migrants with resources help develop peripheral economies by their local consumption, including house construction and small-scale investments, which, in turn, create positive externalities for the regions to which they return.

In a related discussion, Sherraden (1991) suggests the importance of moving the focus of US welfare policy from subsidies to consumption and income to policies which foster savings and investment and the ability to accumulate assets. The savings of return migrants are analogous to the assets which Sherraden believes are needed to move people out of poverty. If accumulating assets changes the way individuals view their place in the economic system, then migrants empower themselves by pursuing economic gain across space. In the research reported here, there is clear evidence that for return migrants assets influence behavior in a socially positive manner because those who succeed in accumulating assets return to less developed areas with more frequency than those with no savings. This flow of returnees with assets brings private capital to regions which are capital-poor, a private flow which can have public benefits.

Also tested by the Spanish case is Sherraden’s suggestion that asset accumulation should be subsidized rather than consumption. Spanish government policy provided for special emigrant savings accounts which paid market rate interest and permitted emigrants to maintain foreign currency accounts in Spain. The policies are substantial innovations in the highly regulated Spanish banking industry, which encouraged emigrants to repatriate savings. The Spanish current account deficit was essentially covered by unrequited transfers from the mid-1960s until the first oil shock in 1973. Balance of payment accounts show that the major portion of these private unrequited transfers were migrant remittances.

The role of migration in capital accumulation and its impact on the sending area has been significant in several Mexico-to-US migration streams. Diez-Canedo (1 980) documents the substantial flow of migrant remittances sent from the US to migrants’ regions of origin. A positive impact on consumption and investment by international migrants in Mexico is documented by Massey, Alarch, Durand, and Gonzhlez (1987). Although a small percentage of migrants in their sample (21%) reported making investments, excluding housing, a small positive effect on business formation and employment was found.

From the sample of Spanish migrants analyzed here, the average distribution of return migrants follows a pattern of higher average probabilities of return to growth regions and lower average probabilities of return to lagging regions. When estimating probability of return by region with controls for region of birth and the interaction of savings and interest rates, the pattern changes. There are significantly higher probabilities of return to birth region by migrants with savings. This modified pattern shows two clusters of return: to growth centers, similar to the average rates, and to regions of origin. Probability of return is consistently high for growth centers whether measured as an average probability or measured with controls for birth regions and savings. Likewise, probability of migration to a nonbirth region or nonorigin region which is also not a growth center is consistently low. The flow which changes when controlling for savings and investment is return to low growth origin regions, which

I Encouraging Return Migration 1 221

increases with savings. In other words, savings are associated with increases in return to slower growth regions from which migrants originate.

These findings provide the beginnings of a strategy for facilitating return to country of origin by host countries. Host countries which do not view themselves as countries of immigration are eager to develop incentives which deter migrants from becoming permanent residents. These policy concerns are shared by the countries of Western Europe (Collinson, 1993). Germany, for example, does not view itself as a country of immigration and permits naturalization for ethnic Germans and others who prove their “Germanness” (Klusmeyer, 1993). The enlarged European Union is negotiating what types of foreign workers will be allowed access, but has not yet begun to consider incentives to encourage guestworkers to return. The US, which is an immigration country, still has not considered temporary immigration although there are calls to limit the entry of illegal or undocumented workers. The idea of return migration from the US is absent in American immigration policy discussions. Thus, although return migration may be desirable, few host country migration policies encourage it.

Origin countries, however, are eager to benefit from the remittances and savings of their own nationals abroad. During the postwar period of high outmigration from Spain, repatriation of earnings made remittances one of the top three sources of foreign exchange. Current emigration from Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America make it clear that these emerging economies are not able to absorb their labor forces, leading to outmigration. One of the contributors to growth and stability for developing countries and lagging regions could be worker remittances and spending and investing worker savings in their home regions.

Within a country, uneven variations in regional development constitute a parallel policy issue. For example, fast paced development on the coast of China is not being matched by equal growth in the interior, leading to a new phenomenon for the post- 1949 Chinese economy, internal migrants, styled as a floating population.

From a policy perspective, the importance of accumulation in development is clear (Chenery & Syrquin, 1975) and, because the savings of workers can relax the resource constraint in the less developed origin regions, the use of remittances is seen as a potential source of development capital. Accordingly, the role return migrants with savings could play in a developing economy has been a subject of interest (Stark & Lucas, 1988). From the point of view of the migrants, savings from earnings abroad are part of a portfolio strategy to reduce risk in family earnings (Katz & Stark, 1986). Other research has shown the role of migration in smoothing consumption by spreading risk across geographic regions (Rosenzweig & Stark, 1989).

Given this perspective, that return migrants use savings from international migration as a substitute for credit and consumption, the relative attractiveness of regions in the home country should vary based on whether a migrant has cash to buy housing and the local interest rates. In other words, based on how much he has saved while abroad, regions in the home country will not be equally attractive. A study of the interaction between the propensity to migrate, the local unemployment rate, and current employment status found that those who are unemployed are more likely to leave high unemployment rate areas than low unemployment rate areas. Those who are employed are insensitive to local unemployment rates (DaVanzo, 1978).


Regional differences should result in different rates of return home for emigrants, causing emigrants to choose their return region in relation to their capital endowment, defined as savings amassed while abroad. In addition spatial variations in the mortgage interest rate, as a result of spatially imperfect capital markets in Spain in 1978, interact with savings in determining an emigrant's probability of returning to his native province. Both savings behavior and interest rates are potential policy variables to facilitate return migration.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETURN MIGRATION In spite of differences in migration experience, there is a simple explanation of choice

of return destination: Migrants return to their place of birth. The attraction of place of birth has been noted (Long & Hansen, 1977; Rogers & Belanger, 1990). Reports on village life and return migration show the importance of long-term ties some migrants maintain with their place of birth, supporting the idea that a migrant has better information about his home region and, therefore, would be more likely to return there (Massey, et al., 1987; Gregory, 1978; Collier, 1987). However, a preference for region of birth is mitigated by consumption opportunities: the general level of local economic development, as well as the local price of housing and the local mortgage interest rate. Migrants without savings may prefer an urban area with, all things being equal, relatively lower unemployment. Emigrants will be sensitive to regional variables which interact directly with their plans.

The individuals in the survey analyzed here are part of the large-scale European worker migration which followed World War 11, with the bulk of the flows from 1955 to 1978 composed principally of workers from Southern Europe emigrating to Northern Europe. Many of these workers, even those on long-term assignment, subsequently returned to country of origin. In addition to higher relative wages abroad, other pecuniary motives existed for emigration. Financial capital was relatively inaccessible in Spain during the period studied due to the need for physical property as collateral. Home mortgages required large down payments (50% down was common) and had short terms, often less than five years. As a result, in this analysis, credit is a constraint on consumption because, due to capital market constraints, an individual could not borrow against future income. Perhaps incompleteness of local capital markets encouraged migrants to substitute international savings for capital. Migrants could acquire financial capital by migrating. The real wage was higher abroad, allowing migrants to save more rapidly than if they were working at home and giving them more purchasing power at home.

The idea that migrants go abroad to save and substitute their own savings for local borrowing depends on the assumption that these migrants were prevented from borrowing in the first place. Some of the absence of lending would be due to information costs and risk. Some could be due to traditions or constraints that are difficult to model. Anthropological evidence on credit limits that I found, as well as an international survey on credit availability, demonstrate that credit constraints existing during the time period considered. Anecdotal evidence from Spain confirms that access to credit was limited by income class.

1 Encouraging Return Migration I 223

Anthropological studies as well as sociological studies provide evidence of European migration as a vehicle for savings. Gregory (1978) describes the availability of credit for different income classes in Estepa, Sevilla. In general, land and structures are the only acceptable form of collateral in the period he describes (roughly 1960-1975). Of particular interest is a family-run cookie business which produces Christmas cookies sold throughout Spain and is the village’s principal nonfarm employer. The business is unable to raise working capital and sends members to Germany to raise cash to buy materials for the Christmas production season. Other evidence on the importance of migration as a way to raise cash is provided in Garmendia (1981) and Rex, Joly, and Wilpert (1987). In interviews reported in these studies, migrants abroad and departing migrants mentioned buying a house as a principal goal of emigration.

Further evidence of the need for savings from abroad is evident from Japelli and Pagano (1989) who estimate that the share of disposable income of Spanish consumers whose behavior is inconsistent with the Life-Cycle Permanent Income Hypothesis (LC- PIH) is .52 using a nonlinear instrumental variables approach and .72 for a full information maximum likelihood estimate. By comparison, the estimate of the share of income of US consumers whose behavior is inconsistent with LC-PIH is .21 and .17, respectively. The nonliquidity in consumer credit markets in Spain for the time period 1961-1984, years of high outmigration, is evident from this comparison. Under the LC-PIH, consumption in any given time period is not a function of the individual’s current income and resources, but total resources over a lifetime. If an individual cannot borrow against future income at some interest rate, then consumption during one time period is constrained by current disposable income and financial assets due to credit market imperfections.

Return migrants provide an empirical case where the effects of different amounts of savings on choice of destination can be examined. International migrants make migration decisions when they return to their home country. Do they return to their place of origin or do they migrate onward to a new region? Strategies which maximize security, house purchase and small business investment, may not be clustered in the same spatial array as employment opportunities. The evidence presented here suggests that migrants are not only sensitive to spatial variations in returns to labor, but also directly sensitive to regional variations in interest rates. Do the choices of region increase regional inequality in the origin country? Under what conditions is return directed to lagging regions?

In order to estimate the effect which savings and rates have on the probability of returning home for an individual migrant, three types of variables are considered. The first category is demographic controls for each migrant: gender, age, marital status, number of children, educational attainment, and region of birth. The second category is saving and consumption activities undertaken by each migrant: the amount of savings from time abroad, whether a migrant is a business investor or not, and migrant’s housing tenure choice. Housing is obtained in four ways. The migrant may buy a house outright with cash, buy a house on credit with a substantial down payment, inherit a house, or rent a house. The third category, here reduced to one variable, is financial characteristics of the region. Local rates of mortgage interest is used as an indicator.


METHOD AND DATA There are significant variations among the migrant workers analyzed here as well

as among the external factors which influence return migration. Migrants select regions which maximize lifetime utility and these regions may change over the life course. For each individual worker, the comparison is between region of birth and the best alternative location. Given that the data used in this analysis is cross-sectional, I can only observe the choice of current region and treat region of birth as a proxy for the departure region for the initial outmigration.

Define an index of choice RH* (probability of RETURN HOME) as

RH* = 1, if RH = > 0, 0, if RH < 0,

where RH is the difference in utility between the region of birth and an alternative region .

RH is defined as

vb - KO, b = birth region, a = alternate region,

where v b = indirect utility in birth region and vill= indirect utility of the best alternative region j .

The indirect utility function for each individual in each region is as follows:

(1) V- I = V( We, Si, rj)

for all i = 1 ,... n, j = 1 ,... m

where

Wo = the wage rate for individual i in region j Si = savings while abroad, 0 = the local interest rate.

Here I assume that current wages are used to purchase Xu, the purchased input and that this consumption is not related to spatial factors. (The price of X, is set to 1.) The amount of savings each migrant has sets the level of housing consumption possible in combination with the interest rate. The interest rate drives the asset price of houses, the cost of doing business, and indicates the value of savings. Assuming a liquidity constraint, housing prices should vary inversely with interest rates, so that as cost of funds rises, prices of houses fall. For the migrant buying a house on credit, his housing price is composed of two elements: the house price and the interest rate. However, the real cost of a house to a borrower may not vary much as rates increase. Assuming that the monthly payment for a house is constant, as rates rise, more of each payment will be for interest, but the principal loaned will be lower if prices fall as a result of high rates. By the same logic, if interest rates are relatively lower, a larger share of each

I Encouraging Return Migration I 225

monthly payment will amortize principal as house prices rise. Therefore, savings, not current wages, determine the ex post facto housing purchase. The indirect utility function is simplified to a housing utility function, V(H#), where

I analyze the choice of home country destination by returning migrants with different amounts of savings using data on former guestworkers currently in urban areas of Spain in 1978 (n = 1567). A return migrant in this context is an individual who has worked abroad for at least one year and who is living in Spain permanently at the time of the survey. Permanently means not on vacation, sick leave, or visiting with the intention of returning.

These individual-level data are from a sample of return migrants present in urban areas in 21 provinces of Spain. (There are 50 provinces in Spain, including the Canary Islands.) These 21 provinces were aggregated to 15 by the original collectors of the data. The sample was enumerated in middle, working class, and poor neighborhoods, which suggests that migrants in the upper range of the wealth distribution would be undersampled. The field work was carried out in urban Spain in July 1978, funded by el Fondo para la Investigacibn Econbmica y Social de la Confederacibn Espaiiola de las Cajas de Ahorros (Fund for Economic and Social Research of the Spanish Confederation of Savings Banks). The sample frame chosen is a stratified sample of urban areas with populations larger than 50,000. Enumerators began at randomly selected spots in middle and working class residential neighborhoods and followed a house-to-house path until they found enough returned migrants to complete their quota (Castillo, 1980).

Using a logit to predict the likelihood of choosing one destination v. another, I focus on the coefficient estimates on variable associated with choosing to return to birthplace region or migrate to another region of Spain. This decision follows the decision to leave a European migration destination. Accordingly, this research presents a cross-section image of one decision in a migration chain using microlevel data. The analysis is perforce static.

The probability of returning to birthplace region is estimated using the logit model because the logit maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) is consistent and relatively robust even if the independent variables are not normally distributed (Maddala, 1983). Because I have no conjecture about the underlying distributions of the independent variables and given that most of them are ordinal and nominal dummies, this is an important consideration. Although there is good evidence that the regional characteristics are normally distributed, there is less evidence concerning home ownership and business characteristics.

Although most migration models follow a linear or semilog form, there is evidence that coefficient estimates depend on functional form (Greenwood, 1985; Goss & Chang, 1983). The model estimated here is not strictly a migration model, however. Instead of estimating the flows of individuals, I am concerned with estimating the relative size of the parameters which determine choice of region. In particular, I am testing whether regional interest rates are a significant determinant of return destination. The equations estimated are logits of the probability of choosing to return to birthplace region or

226 I JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I Vol. 7 7/No. 311995

migrate to another region of Spain. This choice follows the decision to leave another European country and head for Spain, a decision which is not covered here because it is beyond the scope of the data collected. The general model estimated is:

(3) In (Pi / 1 - Pi) = (Y + PXi

where Pi is the probability of choosing a particular outcome for each group of identical individuals or, in my case, for each group with the same observable traits in the vector X . The rate of change in the cumulative logistic distribution, the probability density function, is greatest when P= 112. Accordingly, independent variables in the regression equation will have the most influence on P at the median of the distribution. By the same logic, given the flatter slopes at the ends of the distribution, the independent variables will have less influence on P in those regions of probability. Following this logic, I have estimated the probabilities of returning to one’s birthplace province for individuals using mean values for the dummy independent variables.

In order to compare coefficient estimates in a logit equation, five equations are estimated, incorporating an additional set of variables in each equation in order to test the overall significance of four sets of variables for the entire sample. Each subset measures how probabilities of returning to region of birth vary when controlling for a changing array of variables. The first equation uses regional dummies for place of birth. The second equation adds demographic predictors, such as gender, age, marital status, number of children, and educational attainment, to the regional dummies. The third equation adds savings, housing consumption, and length of stay. The fourth adds local interest rates as a measure of local capital market constraints. The fifth adds interaction effects between interest rates and the savings variables, housing variables, and business. (Means and standard deviations of variables are reported in Table 1. Coefficient estimates with standard errors for all five equations are shown in Table 2.) Specifically, the equation used is:

(4)

where Xi is the vector of personal characteristics, Y, is the vector of economic characteristics, Zi is the vector of regional characteristics, L are the interaction effects between regional characteristics and economic ones, and c is the disturbance term. Definitions of the variables used and means and standard deviations are in Table 1.

RESULTS Comparing the estimates of parameters shows that region is a significant predictor

of return, but that when controlling for interest rate and incomes simultaneously, the disparities among the regions increase. As expected, probability of return is lower on average for outlying regions and higher for the three central urban areas. In addition, the effects of age, marital status, and gender maintain their significance as independent effects. The disparity in coefficient estimates for the high growth urban regions v. the lower growth provincial regions increases when we account for the differences between mortgage interest rates. In other words, the average rates of return from the first


TABLE 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables

Variable Mean of X s.d. of X ~

Born in: Madrid Barcelona Valencia Vizcaya New Castile Catalunya Pais Valenciano Euskadi Old Castile Asturias Extremadura Andalucia Galicia Arag6n Murcia

Female

Age squared Single Kids Illiterate Literate Primary school completed Secondary school completed Savings <25,000 ptas Savings 25,000-50,000 ptas Savings 51,000-1 00,000 ptas Savings >100,000 ptas Credit Rent inherit Business Length of stay abroad Rate in 1977 Rate'no savings Rate'savings <25,000 ptas Rate'savings 25,000-50,000 ptas Rate'savings 51 ,OOO-100,000 ptas Rate'savings >100,000 ptas Rate'cash Ratekredit Rate'rent Rate*in herit Rate'business

Summary of Variables Used

Age

Gender: 1 = female, 0 = male Categories for age

1 = less than 25 years 2 = 25-29 3 = 30-34 4 = 35-39 5 = 40-44

0.054 0.037 0.050 0.008 0.052 0.01 2 0.058 0.003 0.079 0.1 06 0.065 0.264 0.124 0.034 0.056 0.31 6 4.762

1758.200 0.227 1.846 0.035 0.246 0.509 0.1 26 0.1 59 0.1 46 0.1 77 0.1 60 0.1 38 0.224 0.064 0.161 7.257 -0.096 -0.027 -0.022 -0.01 7 -0.021 -0.023 -0.076 -0.044 0.040 -0.01 5 -0.042

0.225 0.1 89 0.21 9 0.089 0.221 0.1 09 0.234 0.051 0.269 0.308 0.246 0.441 0.329 0.1 81 0.229 0.465 1.91 5

828.080 0.41 9 0.1 84 1.787 0.431 0.500 0.332 0.366 0.353 0.382 0.367 0.345 0.41 7 0.244 0.368 5.689 0.957 0.400 0.341 0.369 0.396 0.420 0.700 0.427 0.438 0.1 79 0.407

(continued)

228 I JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I Vol. 7 7". 3/7995

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Summary of Variables Used (cont'd) Categories for age (cont'd)

6 = 45-49

Primary Secondary Omitted

7 = 50-54 8 = 55-59 9 = 60-64

10 = 65-69 11 = 70 and above

Marital status: 1 = single, 0 = married Family size: kids = number of children Education dummies

Illiterate Literate Complete primary school Complete secondary Technical and university

Categories for savings C25,OOO pesetas 25,000-50,OOO 51 ,OOO-lOO,OOO >1oo,OOo No savings is omitted category

Inherited Inherit Renters Rent Buyers using credit Credit Buy outright Omitted

Dummies for housing tenure

Business = 1 if have invested in own business Stay = length of stay abroad in years Interest rate variables

Rate of interest at current location: Interaction between rate and house bought on credit: Interaction between rate and house bought with cash: Interaction between rate and inherited house: Interaction between rate and house renter: Interaction between rate and business owner: Interaction between rate and no savings: Interaction between rate and savings ~25,000: Interaction between rate and savings 25,OOO-50,000: Interaction between rate and savings 51 ,OOO-100,000 Interaction between rate and savings >100,000:

Standardized Interest Rates for 1977 Valencia -0.080760

Pais Valenciano -0.975868 Arag6n -0.045777

Barcelona 0.840395

Catalunya 0.01 7435 Leon-Asturias 0.255945

Galicia 1.934587 Old Castile 0.1 21 578

Murcia -0.76581 4

Andalucia -0.1 181 52 Extremadura -0.805043 New Castile -0.41 6308 Madrid -1.41 9820

Rate 77 Rate'credit Rate'cash Rate'inherit RateVent Rate'business Rate*no savings Rate'savings <25,000 ptas. Rate'savings 25,000-50,OOO ptas. Rate'savings 51 ,OOO-lOO,OOO ptas. Rate'savings>l 00,000 ptas.

' Mean interest rate is negative because the regional interest rate variable is standardized and measures the deviation from the mean.


estimation overestimate the attractiveness of lagging regions, relative to growth regions, to return migrants. It is the possession of savings that makes return to lagging regions at all likely. Without savings, the rate of return to low growth regions would be extremely low, which shows how important savings are to a pattern of balanced return migration.

Turning first to the average probabilities of return calculated from the coefficient estimates reported for the simplest model (Eq. 1 in Table 2), returnees born in Barcelona (p = 0.89), Valencia (p = 0.91) and Pais Valenciano (p = 0.90) and Madrid (p = 0.84), are most likely to return to place of birth. The column labeled Eq. 1 of Table 2 reports coefficient estimates for a logit model that predicts return home as a function of region of birth, with Madrid as the omitted region. The probabilities of returning to region of birth were calculated using:

Return to place of birth is least likely to New Castile (p = 0.19), Andalucia (p = 0.40), and Extremadura (p = 0.34), with all three coefficients significant at 1% level. These three regions, to the south and southwest of Madrid, are largely agricultural during this time period and return migrants who are former farmworkers seeking nonfarm jobs have fewer possibilities for employment on return. The likelihood of return to the remaining regions is lower than to Madrid and the three growth centers, Barcelona, Valencia, and Pais Valenciano, but higher than to the three agricultural regions characterized by large land holdings.

Overall, the coefficients on region have the expected signs with larger, more productive towns drawing more return natives than the provincial centers with less vibrant economies, while the provinces dependent on latifundia agriculture have the lowest rates of return. The hierarchy of regional attractiveness suggested by these results matches internal migration patterns with the result that return to permanent residence may be understated by these results if internal migration preceded international migration (Barbancho, 1970). However, they provide an estimate of average regional attractiveness which matches in rank order regional levels of disposable income (Banco de Bilbao, 1985). The average rates of return to each region are useful as benchmarks and are comparable to other average indicators such as disposable income.

When demographic factors are added to the model in Eq. 2, the probabilities change slightly, although the relative rankings of the regions by probability of return remains the same as in Eq. 1. The variable from Eq. 2 which most strongly causes the probability of return to place of birth to vary is education. Those with more schooling (the omitted category is technical school graduates, university attenders, and graduates) are much less likely to return to birthplace region.

The interpretation of the education effect could be twofold. First, increasing educational attainment requires a more specialized job match and, second, advanced education is an indicator of a prior history of internal migration. However, no questions about internal migration were asked in the survey analyzed here. Half of the sample are primary school graduates. Both females and males in this category are more likely to return to birthplace region than university and technical school attenders and graduates and about as likely to return to region of birth as secondary school graduates

230 I JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I Vol. 7 7". 3/7995

TABLE 2

Coefficient Estimates for Logit Yodel of Likelihood of Return to Birthplace Region (with Standard Errors)

Variables: Constant

Eq. 1 Eq. 2 Eq. 3 Eq. 4 Eq. 5 1.655' 0.915" 0.893'" 1.429' 1.561 (0.30) (0.42) (0.45) (0.46) (0.47)

Born in: Barcelona

Valencia

Vizcaya

New Castile

Catalunya

Pais Valenciano

Euskadi

Old Castile

Asturias

Extrernadura

Andalucia

Galicia

Aragbn

Murcia

Fernale

Age

Age squared

Single

Children

Illiterate

Literate

Primary school

Secondary school

Savings<25,000 pesetas

0.466 (0.53) 0.634 (0.65)

(0.65)

(0.42)

(0.56) 0.51 8 (0.46) -1.655 (1.04) -1.401 (0.35) -1.479' (0.34) -2.332' (0.37) -2.066' (0.32) -1.342' (0.34) -0.683 (0.44) -1.41 5'

-1.655*

-3.090'

-1.431

(0.37)

0.894t (0.55) 0.678 (0.50)

(0.66)

(0.42)

(0.58) 0.366 (0.47)

(1.08)

(0.36)

(0.35) -2.381 (0.38) -2.1 9' (0.33) -1.380' (0.34)

(0.44)

(0.38)

-1.732*

-3.1 89*

-1.238'.

-1.425

-1.421

-1.469'

-0.633

-1.498'

-0.272" (0.13) 0.458' (0.19) -0.001 (0.00) -0.027 (0.18) 0.005 (0.04) 1.088' (0.38) 0.553" (0.26) 0.696' (0.24) 0.778' (0.27)

0.972t (0.55) 0.564 (0.51)

(0.67) -1.822'

-3.303'

-1.454' (0.59) 0.077 (0.48)

(0.4)

-1.292

-1 443' (0.37) -1.62V (0.35)

(0.39)

(0.33)

(0.35)

(0.45)

(0.39)

(0.13) 0.350t (0.19) -0.001 t (0.00) -0.081 (0.19)

(0.04)

(1.09)

-2.482'

-2.326'

-1.523'

-0.81 6t

-1.830*

-0.21 67

0.023

0.921 ** (0.39) 0.382 (0.27) 0.597* (0.24) 0.662" (0.28) 0.551 (0.18)

0.054 (0.46)

(0.52)

(0.69)

-0.034

-2.270'

-3.650* (0.44) -2.1 54' (0.61) -0.1 59 (0.48) -1.527 (1.17) -2.053' (0.39) -2.295' (0.38) -2.798' (0.39) -2.940' (0.35) -2.708' (0.40) -1.488' (0.47) -2.257' (0.40) -0.21 7t (0.14) 0.397" (0.20) -0.001 ** (0.00) -0.061 (0.19) 0.026 (0.04) 0.871 *' (0.39) 0.320 (0.27) 0.591 (0.25) 0.593'* (0.28) 0.589' (0.1 9)

-0.009 (0.59) -0.1 41 (0.53) -2.372' (0.70) -3.755' (0.45) -2.1 83' (0.61)

(0.50)

(1.16)

(0.40) -2.377' (0.39) -2.897' (0.41) -3.01 7' (0.36) -2.745' (0.41) -1.593' (0.48) -2.396' (0.42) -0.231t

-0.262

-1.742

-2.147'

(0.14) 0.424" (0.20) -0.001 ** (0.00) -0.045 (0.1 9)

(0.04) 0.01 3

0.867" (0.39) 0.309 (0.27) 0.5 5 8 * (0.25) 0.555*' (0.29) 0.554' (0.19)

(continued)


TABLE 2 (Continued)

Variables: Eq. 1 Eq. 2 Eq. 3 Eq. 4 Eq. 5 Constant 1.655' 0.91 5'' 0.893" 1.429* 1.561

(0.30) (0.42) (0.45) (0.46) (0.47)

Savings 25,000-50,OOO pesetas 0.535' 0.61 6* 0.593*

Savings 51 ,O00-100,000 pesetas

Savings>l 00,000

Credit

Rent

Inherit

Business

Stay abroad

Rate in 1977

Rate*No Savings

Rate*Savings<25,000 pesetas

Rate'Savings 25,000-50,000 pesetas

RateSavings 51 ,OOO-100,000 pesetas

Rate'Savings>l 00,OOO pesetas

Rate'Cash

Rate'Credit

Rate'Rent

Rate'inherit

Rate'Business

(0.1 8) 0.886' (0.18) 0.739' (0.19) -0.396"

-0.029 (0.18)

(0.1 5) 1.052* (0.28) -0.336** (0.17) -0.024** (0.01 )

(0.1 9) (0.19) 0.931 0.931 (0.1 8) (0.18) 0.806' 0.81 5' (0.19) (0.20)

(0.1 9) (0.19) -0.405** -0.427"

-0.1 48 -0.092 (0.1 5) (0.16) 1.021 0.899' (0.29) (0.29) -0.258 -0.209 (0.1 7) (0.1 7) -0.01 9 -0.023" (0.01) (0.01) 0.508* 0.228 (0.08) (0.45)

0.576* (0.23) 0.284 (0.24) 0.1 75 (0.22) 0.1 67 (0.22) 0.450" (0.22) 0.244 (0.45)

(0.46)

(0.46) -1.01 0+ (0.60) -0.023 (0.18)

-0.034

-0.385

* significant at 1% level. +* Significant at 5% level. + Significant at 10% level.

as well as those who are literate, literate representing the self-taught, adults who did not attend school or complete school, but who are able to read and write. Illiterates are most likely to return to birthplace region. This may be because illiterates are least likely to have made an internal move prior to emigration, so that their birthplace is still their last domestic residence. If the least qualified part of the migrant labor force returns to its origin region while the more educated move to urban areas, then human capital improvements alone will not provide an impetus for the development of lagging regions.

232 I JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I Vol. 77/No. 3/1995

Next, savings variables and housing status are included in the model. Those with positive annual savings were significantly more likely to return to region of birth than those with no savings. Those with annual savings between 51,OOO and 100,000 pesetas were the most likely to return to birthplace region and those with savings greater than 100,000 pesetas were only slightly less likely to return. As savings increase, the propensity to return also increases, but attenuates at higher levels of savings.

Buying a house for cash is positively associated with return to region of birth. Those buying a house for cash are somewhat more likely to return to region of birth than renters; those buying a house on credit are significantly less likely to return to region of birth than those buying a house for cash. Probabilities calculated for a married, primary school graduate of average age with an average number of children and an average length of stay show that female renters with no savings are 10% less likely to return to Madrid than those with savings in the fourth quintile who have purchased a house for cash, 22% less likely to return to Murcia, 21% less likely to return to both New Castile and Andalucia, and 20% less likely to return to Extremadura. Although average rates of return to Madrid decline for returnees with no savings, they decline twice as quickly to less developed regions.

For males the differences are similar. Those with savings in the fourth quintile who have purchased a house for cash are 9% more likely to return to Madrid, 22% more likely to return to Murcia, 16% more likely to return to New Castile, and 22% more likely to return to both Andalucia and Extremadura. Lagging regions are most attractive to males with cash. Differences in probabilities of returning to region of birth between credit buyers with low savings and cash buyers with higher savings are somewhat smaller but significant. This finding is particularly important because New Castile, Extremadura, Andalucia, and Murcia are the regions with lowest average rates of return to place of birth and some of the highest net outmigration rates, so that even small variations in the rates of return will generate relatively large flows of migrants. Accordingly, small variations in the savings rate also would have a large impact on rates of return to lagging regions, which is a desirable outcome in policy terms.

Comparing the probabilities of returning to birthplace for females and males while varying savings, house purchase, and business investment decisions illustrates the significance of these variables. The rank order of the provinces does not change but the relative attractiveness of the outlying provinces v. the three central provinces does change. For female renters with no savings, the likelihood of returning home to Barcelona (p = 0.91) is only slightly lower than for cash house buyers with ample savings (p = 0.96). In both cases, the likelihood of return to region of birth is high. For the same two groups originally from Galicia, the estimated probability of returning home is 0.46 for renters and 0.68 for cash buyers. This increase of 22 points is similar for Andalucia, Extremadura, New Castile, and Murcia, as well as for Asturias, Catalunya, Old Castile, and Vizcaya. Both male and female patterns suggest that migrants from the provincial centers choose between their areas of origin and the three major metropolitan areas based on their levels of savings and their plans for house purchase; most of the return migrants from the three major centers return to these areas regardless of their economic plans.

The amount of savings has less effect on the destination choices of migrants originally from high growth regions. However, savings increases the probability of return to areas

1 Encouraging Return Migration I 233

of high outmigration. The return of migrants to areas with a need for investment is a positive outcome.

The fourth equation adds the local standardized urban mortgage interest rates (variable: rate in 1977, which is a standardized interest rate, Table 2). In the previous equation with no control for mortgage rates, high levels of savings abroad are strongly positively associated with return to region of birth, while entrepreneurs (business), who are relatively high savers, are significantly less likely to return to birthplace. With mortgage rates included, high savers still are significantly more likely to return to region of birth, but the coefficient on business investment is no longer significant, although still negative. This suggests that business investors are primarily sensitive to rates because controlling for rates reduces the significance of the investment variable.

Buying a house on credit, still significant, decreases the probability of return even when controlling for interest rates (p = -0.405, significant at 5% level, Table 2). Overall, there is a preference for areas with high interest rates (p = 0.508, significant at 1% level, Table 2), with weaker preferences among business investors but stronger preferences among both housebuyers seeking credit and those buying for cash, when controlling for interest rate differences. This supports the hypothesis that migrants who return to their birthplace and buy a house come from areas with higher interest rates and seek savings to replace credit.

The coefficients for the region-of-birth variables change over the four equations and divide into two distinct groups. One set composed of the large urban areas of Barcelona and Valencia and the area which surrounds Valencia, the Pais Valenciano, are, at first, not significantly more attractive to return migrants than Madrid. The addition of the demographic variables and the savings and housing variables increases the attractiveness of Barcelona somewhat ( p = 0.894 for Eq. 2 and 0.972 for Eq. 3, both are significant at the 10% level, Table 2). After the addition of the interest rate variable, these regional coefficients are no longer significantly different from Madrid, In the first regressions, these dummies were representing several effects, demographic effects, as well as a regional effect and an interest rate effect. By the fourth estimation, these effects are measured separately. In effect, the main urban areas are similar in their attractiveness to return migrants, providing a more robust labor market than the rest of the country and more opportunities for those with few resources.

The remaining regions are less attractive than Madrid on average and again relative attractiveness only changes slightly with the addition of demographic, savings, and housing controls. The addition of the interest rate variables makes this set of regions much less attractive than Madrid, increasing the absolute size of the coefficients and the t-statistics. Prior to adding the interest rate variable, the regional dummies were picking up this effect. In Table 2, these changes can be seen clearly. The coefficient for Old Castile, for example, decreases from -1.401 to -1.443 as demographic and savings variables are added, but then further decreases to -2.147 (all significant at the 1% level) after interest rate variables are added. The pattern is similar for Asturias, Extremadura, Andalucia, Galicia, Murcia, and Aragbn, although the coefficients on Arag6n are not significant in the first two equations. Overall, these 11 regions have rates that are higher than Madrid's rate.

These high interest rate regions are principally attractive to returning migrants with savings. Thus, in the first three regressions these coefficients are less negative and less

234 I JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I Vol. 7 7/No. 3/7995

significant as they pick up the interest rate effect. When the interest rate effect is measured independently, the region coefficients become more negative because they no longer incorporate the effect of interest rates. The measured change in attractiveness of these outmigration regions emphasizes the need for savings for a successful return strategy.

The probabilities of returning to birthplace calculated from these logits vary from those calculated for the same model with interest rates omitted. Overall, the probability of return to birthplace region is lower for women than for men in every comparable case. This may be due to marriage, but a separate estimation of females not reported here shows no significant effect for marital status. The probability of return when controlling for interest rates increases for Madrid, Vizcaya, New Castile, Extremadura, Andalucia, and Murcia for cash housebuyers with higher savings (total savings of 5 1,000-100,000 ptas). Madrid and Vizcaya have relatively low mortgage rates, about one standard deviation lower than the mean rate for the 50 provinces, while the remaining four regions each have rates just under the mean, but not one standard deviation less. Two regions show a decrease in the probability of return to birthplace region: Catalunya and Galicia. Galicia’s rates are two standard deviations above the mean, while Catalunya’s are just above the mean. Here, without controlling for the interaction between rates and home purchase or rates and savings, the main effect of rates seems to be that lower rates make a region generally more attractive. These interaction effects are tested in the next logit estimation.

In the fifth estimation, interaction terms between interest rates and savings, house purchase, and business investment are added. The difference in the log-likelihood ratio between Eqs. 4 and 5 is significant at the 1% level, indicating that the additional variables add explanatory power to the model. The most powerful interaction effect is the interest rate at current location combined with the highest level of savings while abroad.

The interaction between savings and interest rate is positive and significant for three categories of savers: first, for those with no savings, second, for those with the highest level of savings, and last, for those with a small level of savings, adequate for a down payment or the purchase of consumer durables. The positive and significant interaction effects for those with positive savings does not alter the size and significance of the four savings dummies coefficients. Irrespective of interest rates, those with savings are more likely to return to region of birth than those without. Three groups are sensitive to rates. First, those with no positive savings who return to birthplace region are more likely to be from regions with high interest rates. Second are those with money to lend and third are those who need to borrow money. Given that migrants are sensitive to the cost of money across regions, variations in regional interest rates could be used to encourage return to lagging regions.

The probabilities of returning to region of birth based on this logit are similar to those from the previous four equations in terms of the effects of the main independent variables. Females, again, are less likely to return to region of birth than males overall. Cash buyers are more likely to return to birthplace region than credit buyers, who, in turn, are more likely to return to region of birth than renters. Those with higher education are much less likely to return to birthplace regions which are nonmetropolitan areas.


TABLE 3

Probability of Return to Birthplace Region by Savings and House Purchase to New Castile and Andalucia

New Castile Andalucia

Female Male Female Male

No savings, rent .13 .16 .27 .31 Lowest savings, credl .16 .19 .31 .36 2nd level savings, credit .17 .20 .32 .37 3rd level savings, cash .28 .33 .50 55 3rd level savings, cash, university education .18 .22 .36 .41 Highest savings, cash .24 .28 .46 52

N.B. Except as indicated, all probabilities are for those with primary school education completed.

Two regions, in particular, New Castile and Andalucia, show these effects clearly and illustrate how the probabilities vary (Table 3). These two provinces are important because they had the highest rates of outmigration and thus rates of return migration may be significant to development. Andalucia has experienced more growth than New Castile and higher rates of return as would be expected, although again savings increases the probability of return.

For New Castile the highest probability is 0.33 for males with third level savings, a cash purchase, and primary school education. The lowest is 0.13 for females with no savings, renters, also with a primary school education. For Andalucia, these same two categories represent the highest probability value (p = 0.55) and lowest (p = 0.27).

In this last estimation, the probability of return by natives declines for Vizcaya, New Castile, Pais Valenciano, Extremadura, and Murcia when compared to both Eqs. 3 and 4, Eq. 3 incorporating all the individual-specific independent variables and Eq. 4 incorporating in addition the simple interest rate variable. The interest rates in these five regions are all below the mean. The probability of return increases for Asturias and Galicia when compared to Eqs. 3 and 4. The rates for these two regions are above the mean, Galicia’s a full two standard deviations. For the remaining regions, there is no clear cut direction of change in likelihood of returning to birth region when the interest rate interaction terms are added. These results suggest that interest rates have an effect on choice of destination for homebuyers and those with savings especially where, unlike the general preference for lower rates, there is a preference for higher rates for those with savings and those buying a house with cash.

CONCLUSIONS Return migrants with savings have a larger probability of settling in birthplace

regions, which tend to be lagging regions. Furthermore, areas with high interest rates are more attractive to those with savings and house purchase plans. Accordingly, policies which encourage high rates of savings among migrants are likely to encourage return migration which is spread across regions of outmigration, rather than concentrated in major growth centers, the principal urban areas. Importantly, migrants are sensitive to differences in the cost of money across regions, suggesting that migrants are indeed


pursuing a spatioeconomic strategy and would be sensitive to changes in their home country’s economy.

From a policy perspective, these results suggest that return migrants are sensitive to interregional variations in mortgage interest rates and give evidence of the use of international migration to overcome relatively high costs of credit which may have slowed local economic development. For example, the average rates of return to two regions with low levels of development vary widely based on savings and local interest rates. In New Castile, where the mortgage interest rate is just above the mean for Spain, the average rate of return home is 19%. This average rate exactly matches the probability of return home for primary school educated males with low savings who purchase a house on credit. The rate for females in this category is slightly lower at 16%. By contrast, males with the same education who purchase a house with cash and have an above average level of savings have a probability of return of .33, while females in the same category have a probability of return of .28. In other words, the probability of return to province of birth doubles for males who are cash buyers over credit housebuyers; that of females increases by a factor of 1.75. Possessing savings makes return to a lagging region significantly more likely. Thus, policies which encourage favored treatment for savings could increase rates of return migration.

A similar trend of the effect of savings on probabilities of return home is clear in Galicia, another region with low levels of development. In this case interest rates are much higher than (1.93 standard deviations above) the mean. As a result, the probabilities of return home are much higher here. The average rate of return home for Galicia is 58%. This average rate is almost the same as the probability of return home for primary school educated males with no savings who rent a house (p = 0.59). The rate for females in this category is slightly lower at 53%. By contrast, males with the same education who purchase a house with cash and have an above average level of savings have a probability of return of .86. Females in the same category have a probability of return of 3 3 . In other words, the probability of return to province of birth increases for males who are cash buyers over credit housebuyers by a factor of 1.46, while that of females increases by a factor of 1.57. The increase is slightly smaller in Galicia than in New Castile, but an increase in savings moves rates of return closer to the averages for the growth regions, Madrid and Barcelona. Increases in likelihood of return by migrants with savings is a positive externality to these peripheral, less urbanized regions.

Having established that levels of savings, as well as regional interest rates, are factors which influence the probability of return, there are important implications for policy. First, savings generate an absolute increase in the rate of return to lagging regions. Thus, development policies in countries of high outmigration which facilitate migrants’ ability to save would allow them to return to invest in their own communities. Nationals working abroad do not contribute directly to development at home unless money flows home or they return with savings.

Migrants are sensitive to interest rates, so savings vehicles in hard currency favored interest rates at world levels. Thus, favorable tax treatment for importation of capital and capital goods by return migrants should have positive results. These results include increases in foreign exchange reserves and small scale investments and higher average likelihood of return from abroad by migrants. This leads to the second point.


Based on the analysis presented in this paper, we know that return migrants with savings are more likely to return to a peripheral region, their region of origin, than to a major metropolitan center and that the converse is true for return migrants with no savings so that return migrants with no savings seek out employment in larger urban areas. The specific effects on urban areas of these trends are that impoverished migrants go to big cities while wealthier, successful ones return to their birthplace regions which in general are more rural, less urbanized regions.

Based on these findings, what are the attributes of an ideal immigration policy? If we assume that there will be continuing immigration of low wage and low skill workers to the United States from less developed regions of the world, our goal is to make it possible for migrants to save, so that they will be more likely to return home. If they return home with assets, they will be likely to go to the regions with high rates of outmigration, exactly the regions where investment and development are needed. Diez- Canedo (1980) shows that middle income Mexicans were more likely to migrate to the US temporarily to accumulate savings, while the poorest rural Mexicans were more likely to go to Mexico City to resettle.

In general, organized labor opposes immigration because it can depress wages for natives in the labor market and illegal undocumented workers can depress wages further than legal ones. If undocumented status prolongs the time a migrant needs to reach a target savings goal, then their illegal sojourn is prolonged. Documented workers, however, can participate in the American savings market. They can invest in savings accounts without fear of discovery or confiscation. They can purchase US securities. They can save in dollar-denominated assets indefinitely or until they cash out and return home. As part of a payroll system, they would pay payroll taxes automatically. Then upon return to their origin country they would be able to invest their savings in their home economy. If we want to encourage development in the third world, do we close our doors and build a wall or do we let low wage workers in and make it possible for them to succeed here and return home?

If successful savers come from peripheral areas, they can return home and generate more balanced development. If developed economies want to balance the desire for low wage workers, with the possibility of improving conditions in the origin regions of these low wage workers, then the behavior of returned Spanish migrants suggests that encouraging savings could have a positive effect on local development. If the goal of immigration policy is to help migrants accumulate assets, then we need to rethink the de facto reliance on undocumented low wage workers.

Asset accumulation for immigrants can promote return and make balanced development more likely. Rather than legislating that workers shall not enter the US or promoting a guestworker program similar to that used in West Germany in the 1960s which raises troubling issues in a country of immigration, we might focus on those policy variables we can manipulate in good conscience. Making it easier for workers at the bottom of the labor market to accumulate assets would help natives as well as immigrants.

Based on this analysis, the need to encourage immigrant savings could be an important innovation. However, there are several unresolved issues regarding legal circular migration. The United States Constitution does not have an interim category of citizenship for a temporary migrant with voting privileges, a full member of civil


society. Our ideology of immigration and assimilation makes us uncomfortable with second class citizens who would be allowed to live here but not participate fully in political life. The emigration of immigrants (i.e., the return to origin country) is more common than we acknowledge. Jasso and Rosenzweig (1990) estimate that the annual ratio between loss in population of permanent resident aliens to new immigrants averaged at 500 from 1967-1980. The loss ratios were .464 from 1961 to 1965, .297 from 1966 to 1970, and .385 from 1971 to 1975. The period 1976-1980, which has the highest inflow of new permanent residents, also has the highest relative loss of permanent residents. Would it be possible to allow more immigrant workers on legal visas with 1-5 year renewal periods and make renewal contingent on savings? Now that we have evidence to corroborate the importance of savings for closing the circle, for making it more likely that a migrant will return to the region of origin, what policies can we develop which will make this goal easier to achieve?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Dr. JosC Castillo of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid for supplying the survey data and Dr. Robert Douglas, Director of the University of Pennsylvania Undergraduate Data Analysis Lab for providing the personnel to enter these data. I am grateful to Dr. Ira Harkavy and the Program for Assessing and Revitalizing the Social Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania for financial support. I thank Janice Madden, Douglas Massey, Mark Rosentraub, and two anonymous referees for comments and advice on an earlier version of this paper.

REFERENCES Banco de Bilbao. (1985). Renta nacional de Espafia 1983 y su distribucidn provincial. Vizcaya:

Authors, Servicio de Estudios. Barbancho, A. G. (1970). Las migraciones interiores espafiolas en 1961-1965. Madrid: Estudios

del Instituto de Desarrollo Econbmico, Publicaciones de la Escuela Nacional de Administracibn Publica.

Castillo Castillo, J. (1980). La emigracidn espafiola en la encrucijada: estudio empirico de la emigracicin de retorno [Spanish emigration at the crossroads: an empirical study of return migration]. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociologicas.

Diez-Canedo, J. (1980). A new view of Mexican migration to the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chenery H., & Syrquin M. (1975). Patterns of development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collier, G. (1987). Rural socialists of Andalusia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Collinson, S. (1993). Beyond borders: West European migration policy towards the 21st century.

London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Wyndham Place Trust. DaVanzo, J. (1978). Does unemployment affect migration? Evidence from micro data. Review

of Economics and Statistics, 65, 552-559. Garmendia, J. (Ed.). (1981). La emigracidn espafiola en la encruczjada: marc0 general de la

emigracidn de retorno [Spanish emigration at the crossroads: a general framework of return migration]. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociolbgicas.

Goss, E., & Chang, H. S. (1983). Changes in elasticities of interstate migration: implication of alternative functional forms. Journal of Regional Science, 23, 223-232.

Greenwood, M. (1985). Human migration: theory, models and empirical studies. Journal of Regional Science, 25, 521-541.


Gregory, D. D. (1978). Odisea Andaluza [Andalusian odyssey]. Madrid: Tecnos. Japelli, T., & Pagano, M. (1989). Consumption and capital market imperfections: an international

comparison. American Economic Review, 79, 1088-1 105. Jasso, G., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (1990). The new chosenpeople: immigrants in the United States.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Katz, E., & Stark, 0. (1986). Labor migration and risk aversion in less developed countries.

Journal of Labor Economics, 4, 13 1-49. Klusmeyer, D. B. (1993). Aliens, immigrants, and citizens: the politics of inclusion in the Federal

Republic of Germany. Daedalus, 122, 81-1 14. Long, L.H., & Hansen, K.A. (1977). Interdivisional primary, return, and repeat migration. Public

Data Use, S, 3-10. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Massey, D. S., Alarcbn, R., Durand, J., & Gonzilez, H. (1987). Return to Aztlan: the social

process of migration from western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rex, J. D., Joly, D., & Wilpert, C. (1987). Immigrant associations in Europe. Brookfield, VT:

Gower. Rogers, A., & A. Belanger. (1990). The importance of place of birth in migration and population

redistribution analysis. Environment and Planning A, 22, 193-210. Rosenzweig, M. R., & Stark, 0. (1989). Consumption smoothing, migration, and marriage:

evidence from rural India. Journal of Political Economy, 97,905-926. Sherraden, M. W. (1991). Assets and the poor: a new American werfare policy. Armonk, N Y :

M.E. Sharpe. Stark, O., & Lucas, R. E. B. (1988). Migration, remittances, and the family. Economic

Development and Cultural Change, 36, 463-48 1.

Documents

Return Migration When Savings Differ