Migration and Wellbeing: Some reflections

Migration and Wellbeing: Some reflections

Mauricio Cárdenas

(with Vincenzo Di Maro and Carolina Mejía)

InterAmerican Development Bank’s project on Quality of Life

Conference on Regional Trade Agreements, Migration and Remittances: Focus on CAFTA and Latin America

Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TXApril 12, 2008

Research Questions• Effects of migration on wellbeing.• Previous emphasis on the effects of remittances

on poverty and human capital investment. • Interesting to go beyond the relationship between

migration, income, and choice (consumption of tangible goods and services).

• Migration may have welfare reducing effects such as family fragmentation.

• For example, does migration offset (or amplify) vulnerabilities?

Outline

1. The four dimensions of “Quality of Life”

2. Livability and migration

3. Satisfaction with life, vulnerabilities and migration

4. Econometric results

5. Conclusions

Outline





5. Conclusions

Veenhoven’s (2000) taxonomy of QoL

The Four Qualities of Life Outer Quality Inner Quality

Life Chances Livability of environment

Life-ability of person

Life Results Utility of life

Satisfaction with life






Focus on two QoL dimensions and their relationship with migration

Outline





5. Conclusions

Outer quality of life chances: Livability

Rojas (2008)The external conditions or environmental

opportunities that are assumed to be relevant for living a good life

Three livability areas

Economic livability

Social livability

Political livability

Outer quality of life chances Livability

Yearly GNP growth

Yearly inflation rate

Per capita GNP

Gini Coefficient

People below poverty line

Economic index

Public expenditure on health

Public expenditure on education

Social contributions

Subsidies and other transfers

Social index


Political rights

Civil Freedoms

Voice and accountability

Political stability

Rule of law

Control over corruption

Political index


• Variables from various sources• Country-level variables

• Categories• Ordinal codification: 1 to 6• Aggregation by livability area: mean values• Three livability-area indicators

» Economic, social, and political

– Overall livability indicator


1/3 Economic Index

1/3 Social Index

1/3 Political Index

=Overall livability

Index

Continuous on scale of 1 to 6

Country level variable


Country Economic Rank Social Rank Political Rank Overall Rank Chile 1 9 1 1 Uruguay 2 6 3 2 Costa Rica 5 2 2 3 Argentina 6 1 7 4 Belize 3 10 4 5 Panama 7 11 5 6 Brazil 13 4 8 7 Mexico 8 13 9 8 Colombia 10 3 17 9 Dominican Rep 4 20 6 10 Ecuador 9 14 14 11 Guyana 17 5 12 12 Peru 11 15 10 13 Nicaragua 18 7 13 14 Bolivia 20 8 16 15 Honduras 14 16 15 16 Venezuela 12 12 20 17 El Salvador 15 19 11 18 Guatemala 16 17 19 19 Paraguay 19 18 18 20


Livability and net outflow of emigrants (% pop.):

Averages for 1995, 2000, and 2005

CRI

PANCHL VENBRAARGURY BLZ HND PRYCOL SLV

PER BOLDOM

ECUMEX NICGTM

GUY-2

02

46

net e

mig

ratio

n (%

of t

otal

)

0 5 10 15 20livability ranking

Fitted values net emigration (% of total)

CRIPAN

CHLVEN

BRAARG

URYBLZ

HNDPRY

COLSLV

PERBOL

DOMECU

MEXNIC

GTMGUY

05

1015

20ne

t em

igra

tion

(% o

f tot

al) r

anki

ng


Fitted values net emigration ranking

Livability and net outflow of emigrants (rankings):

Averages for 1995, 2000, and 2005

CRI

PAN

CHL

VENBRA

ARG

URY

HNDPRY

COL

SLV

PER

BOL

DOM

ECU

MEX

NIC

GTM

05

1015

20em

igra

nts

stoc

k (%

of t

otal

)


Fitted values emigrants stock (% of total)

Livability ranking and percentage of population living abroad in 2005

CRIPAN

CHL VENBRAARGURY

BLZ

HND

PRY

COL

SLV

PER BOL

DOM

ECU

MEX

NIC

GTM

GUY

05

1015

rem

ittan

ces

(% o

f GD

P)


Fitted values Workers' remittances (% of GDP)

Livability and remittances as percentage of GDP:2005

Outline



3. Satisfaction with life, vulnerabilities, and migration


5. Conclusions






Veenhoven’s taxonomy of QoL

Data• Gallup World Poll (2006 and 2007), 132 countries.

– Sample: cross section; around 1000 individual observations per country.

• Latinobarómetro survey (1995-2005), 18 LAC countries.– Sample: representative of 100% of population in

all countries but Chile (70%).

We focus on three measures of perceived wellbeing from the Gallup Survey and one

from LatinobarómetroGallup World Poll

1. Overall satisfaction with life (ladder question): From zero to ten, where do you personally feel at this time, assuming that the higher score the better you feel about your life, and the lower score the worse you feel about it?

2. Satisfaction with living standards: Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your standard of living, all the things you can buy and do?

3. Satisfaction with freedom: [In your country] Are you satisfied with the freedom to choose what you do with your life?

Latinobarómetro 4. Overall satisfaction with life: In general terms, how

satisfied are you with your life? (1) Very satisfied, (2) fairly satisfied, (3) satisfied or (4) not very satisfied.

Life satisfaction (ladder question)

02

46

8

Note: Black bar is average value, white bar is standard deviation.Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.

Box Plot of (current) life satisfaction measure or ladder

question

02

46

810

excludes outside values

Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.

Satisfaction with living standards

0.2

.4.6

.8

Note: Black bar is average value, white bar is standard deviation.Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.

Life Satisfaction – Latinobarómetro, waves 2001, 2003 and 2004

0.2

.4.6

Source: Authors’ calculations using Latinobarómetro waves 2001, 2003 and 2004 ; Notes: first bar is “not satisfied at all with one’s life”, second bar “not much satisfied”, third bar “quite satisfied” and, fourth bar “very satisfied”

Recent interest in the relation of perceived wellbeing and income

• Wealthier people are, on average, happier than poor ones (Easterlin, 1974; Oswald, 1997; Diener et al, 2003).

• Easterlin Paradox: Wealthier countries are found to be happier than poor ones but happiness seems to rise with income up to a point, but not beyond it.

• However, Deaton (2007) using the 2006 Gallup Poll shows that across countries average happiness is strongly related to per capita national income.

• This would rule out the existence of a critical level of per capita income above which income has no further effect on happiness.

Life satisfaction, GDP per capita and age

Note: Deaton (2007).

Not just income: the role of insecurity

• Deprivation tends to reduce happiness, but very poor people can be happier than other groups.

• The wellbeing of those who escaped poverty is often undermined by insecurity associated to the risk of falling back to poverty. – For these individuals, reported well-being is often

lower than that of the poor (Graham and Pettinato, 2002).

• In particular, the issue we want to study is how insecurity at different levels affects perceived well-being.

• We focus on three measures of insecurity: nutritional, personal, and income insecurity.

Strategy• We want to know which type of insecurity (nutritional,

personal, and income) plays a greater role. A few caveats:– Interconnections between measures of insecurity

(likely to confound results) – Selection issues (job insecurity proxies are defined

only for those who work). • We first study the relationship between perceived

well-being and each of the types of insecurity in isolation, and then study of the relative importance of different types of insecurity in an unified framework.

• Secondly, we analyze if migration (or having a migrant relative or friend to rely on) is related to wellbeing and if attenuates (or amplify) the relationship between insecurities and wellbeing.

Outline


2. Livability and migrations



5. Conclusions

Nutritional insecurity • Have there been times in the past twelve months

when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed? (NI money, not enough money)

• Have there been times in the past 12 months when you or your family have gone hungry? (NI hungry, gone hungry)

“Have there been times in the past twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?”

(proportion that answered YES)

0 .2 .4 .6nutins_money

VENUSAURYSLVPRYPERPANNIC

MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM

CRICOLCHLCANBRABOLBLZ

ARG


“Have there been times in the past 12 months when you or your family have gone

hungry?” (proportion that answered YES)

0 .1 .2 .3 .4nutins_hungry


MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM


ARG


Nutritional insecurity by income quintiles

0.2

.4.6

1 2 3 4 5

Note: For each income quintile first bar is “nutins money”, second=”nutins hungry”.Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.

Income (job) insecurity• Do you think you could lose your job in the next six

months? (job_insec)• How worried you are of losing your job or staying

unemployed in the next 12 months? “Not worried”, “Just a bit worried”, “Worried”, “Very worried” (Latinobarómetro)

• Do you think the labour regulation protects workers in this country? “Not protected at all”, “just a bit protected”, “Quite protected”, “Very protected” (Latinobarómetro)

• From 1 to 10 where 1 is “completely secure” “ and 10 is “no job security at all” how much job security do you feel you have currently? … you had 5 years ago? (Latinobarómetro)

“Do you think you could loose your job in the next six months?” (proportion that

answered YES)

0 .1 .2 .3job_insec


MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM


ARG


Income/job insecurity by income quintiles

0

.05

.1.1

5.2

.25

1 2 3 4 5


Personal insecurity• Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city

or area where you live? (safe walking)• Have you had money or property stolen from you

or another household member within the past 12 months? (stolen)

• Have you been assaulted or mugged within the past 12 months? (mugged)

• Are there gangs in the area where you live? (2007) (gangs)

• Are there illicit drug trafficking or drug sales in the area where you live? (2007) (drug)

“Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where you live?” (proportion that

answered YES)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8safe_walking


MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM


ARG


“Have you had money or property stolen from you or another household member within the past 12 months?” (proportion that answered YES)

0 .1 .2 .3stolen


MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM


ARG


“Have you been assaulted or mugged within the past 12 months?” (proportion that

answered YES)

0 .05 .1 .15 .2mugged


MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM


ARG


“Are there gangs in the area where you live?” (proportion that

answered YES)

0 .2 .4 .6gangs


MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM


ARG


“Are there illicit drug trafficking or drug sales in the area where you live?”

(proportion that answered YES)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8drug


MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOM


ARG


Victimization indicators by income quintiles

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

1 2 3 4 5Income quintiles

Note: For each income quintile first bar is “safe walking”, second=”stolen”, third=”mugged”, 4=”gangs”, 5=”drug”. Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.

Incidence of different types of insecurities in Latin America

0

.1.2

.3.4

.5

NI money NI hungry safe walking stolen mugged gangs drug job_insec

Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll 2007 wave.

Migration related questions• Have any members of your household, aged 15 to

60, gone to live in a foreign country permanently or temporarily in the past five years? – Two variables: family abroad 1 (yes, still there),

family abroad 2 (yes, still there and yes, has returned)

• Do you have relatives or friends who are living in another country whom you can count on to help you when you need them, or not? (help from abroad)

• Is the city or area where you live a good place or not for immigrants from other countries?

Migration related questions in Gallup

Note: Black bar is average value, white bar is standard deviation.Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll 2007 wave.

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

Per

cent

age

of Y

es re

spon

ses

Family

abro

ad 1

Family

abroa

d 2

Help fro

m abroa

d

“Have any members of your household, aged 15 to 60, gone to live in a foreign country permanently or

temporarily in the past five years?” (proportion that answered YES, still there)


0 .1 .2 .3 .4family_abroad1

URYSLVPRYPERPANNIC

MEXHNDGUYGTMECUDOMCRICOLCHLBRABOLBLZ

ARG

“Have any members of your household, aged 15 to 60, gone to live in a foreign country permanently or

temporarily in the past five years?” (proportion that answered YES, still there and returned)


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5family_abroad2

URYSLVPRYPERPANNIC


ARG

“Do you have relatives or friends who are living in another country whom you can count on to help you

when you need them, or not” (proportion that answered YES)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8help_abroad

URYSLVPRYPERPANNIC


ARG


“Is the city or area where you live a good place or not a good place to live for immigrants from

other countries” (Proportion that answered good place)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1goodplace

VENURYTTOSLVPRYPRI

PERPANNIC

MEXHTI

HNDGUYGTMECUDOMCUBCRICOLCHLBRABOLBLZ

ARG


Migration related questions by income quintile

0.2

.4.6

.8

1 2 3 4 5

Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007; Notes: first bar is “family abroad1”, second bar “family abroad2”, third bar “help from abroad”, fourth bar “good place for immigrants”.

Types of insecurities according to “help from abroad” question - Gallup

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

does not have family/friends abroad you can count on has family/friends abroad you can count on

Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007; Notes: first bar is Nutritional insecurity “not enough money”; second bar job insecurity, third bar “have you been mugged?” fourth “are there gangs in the area where you live”.

Job insecurity and “Did you and your family seriously considered that you all could live abroad?” -

Latinobarómetro

0.2

.4.6

Pro

porti

on o

f res

pond

ents

Did not consider to move abroad Considered to move abroad

Source: Authors’ calculations using Latinobarometro waves 2002, 2003 and 2004: ; Notes: first bar is “not worried at all of losing one’s job”, second bar “just a bit worried”, third bar “Worried” and, fourth bar “very worried”.

Outline




4. Gallup World Poll and Latinobarómetro


6. Conclusions

Life satisfaction decreases with nutritional insecurity…

AUT

SGP

IRL

FINNOR

KWT

CHE

ARE

CANBEL

CYP

NLD

DEU

SWE

JPN

AUS

SVN

GBR

HKG

DNK

NPL

SVK

HRV

PRT

THA

ESPNZL

ITAFRA

BIH

DZALTU

SAUISR

LAO

LBN

LVAMKDSRB

IRN

USA

CZEJOR

HUN

BRA

ESTMNE

BLR

KOR

ALB

ARG

BGD

KAZ

URY

CRI

SEN

TTO

ETH

GTMCHL

PRI

RUS

VNM

IDN

POL

PAN

UKR

YEM

MDA

COL

LKA

PAK

MMR

BGR

BWA

IND

GRC

MEX

CHN

ECUAZEMAR

UZBMRT

PRYKGZ

SLV

BOL

VEN

HND

GHA

ZAF

ARM

TURTJK

DOMROMPER

BFAGEO

NIC

TZA

BDI

ZMB

SLE

MDG

NGAPHL

MLIRWA

UGA

TGO

MOZ

HTI

AGO

CMR

BENKHM

KENZWE

TCD

NERMWI

34

56

78

Life

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

0 .2 .4 .6 .8Nutritional Insecurity

Curve is a LOWESS smoother; bandwidth=0.6


…and with victimization…

JPN

MMRHKG

SGP

AZEALB

CYP

IND

IDN

CAN

SVK

TJK

FIN

KOR

KGZ

NZL

LTU

UZB

BLR

MDG

ITA

SVNTHA

LKAARM

JOR

ARE

LVA

DNK

CHE

NPL

GEO

NOR

USA

JAM

KAZ

PAK

KHM

SWE

DEUPRI

AUT

KOS

IRL

TWN

ISR

ROM

BGR

BGD

UKRLAORUS

NLD

SAU

TZA

EST

YEM

BEL

MLI

MNECUB

NER

GRC

BFA

FRA

HUN

ESP

PAN

MKD

BIHMRT

GBR

TUR

ZWE

SENMAR

AUS

LBN

MYS

POL

VNMMDA

PALPHL

ZAFZMB

NICPRY

HRV

AFG

TGO

URYCHL

CZE

CRI

GHA

BEN

PRT

TTO

ARGKWT

DOM

UGA

RWA

BOL

COL

SRBPER

SLV

CMR

DZA

BWA

KEN

GTM

BRAMEX

ETH

NGA

ECU

HND

MWI

TCD

IRN

VEN

MOZ

AGO

SLEHTI

BDI

34

56

78

Life

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

0 .1 .2 .3 .4Assaulted or Mugged

bandwidth = .8


But increases if person has a relative or friend abroad he can

count on

BRA

CHL

ARG

URY

PER

PAN

CRI

GTMCOL

MEX

ECU

SLV

DOMNIC

HNDPRYBOL

BLZ

GUY

55.

56

6.5

77.

5Li

fe s

atis

fact

ion

0 .1 .2 .3 .4bandwidth = .8

Lowess smoother


Analytical framework

• where i means country averages or individuals• t refers to wave 2006, 2007• Y = measures of perceptions of well-being• INS = various measures of insecurity (nutritional, job,

personal) • M = migration related variables (relative abroad, can count on

help from abroad and considers city a good place for immigrants)

• EXP = alternative (to nutritional insecurity) explanatory variables

• X = control variables• e = error term

Some methodological issues• Categorical variables (such as the ladder question): neglects

cardinal information of the question. A “7”, could be either a 6.8 or a 7.2.

• COLS and POLS procedure: cardinalizes original satisfaction variable, POLS is used for non-numeric categories (both based on Van Praag and Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2008). – Main results hold

• An additional (and more critical) issue: self-reported satisfaction might be affected by unobserved individual personality traits (optimism and pessimism, mood on the day of the interview, among others), biasing the results.

• Routine to capture individual traits (also based on Van Praag and Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2008).– Regress several satisfaction related questions on same set

of covariates, use principal components method to obtain common factor of residuals (that should include this unobservable traits), and use it as a control.

Life satisfaction (ladder question) and types of insecurities - Gallup, individual data, 2007

Notes: Standard errors clustered at country level; Country and time fixed effects are included; Controls included: income Gallup brackets; income country: countries grouped in 6 categories (high_income_OECD; high_income_nonOECD; low_income; lower_middle_income; upper_middle_income); Age categories.

1 2 3 4 5 6OLS OLS COLS OLS OLS OLS

Nutritional insecurity -0.690*** -0.721*** -0.283*** -0.728*** -0.720*** -0.721***(0.113) (0.083) (0.045) (0.081) (0.082) (0.084)

Job insecurity -0.390*** -0.223** -0.159*** -0.186** -0.186** -0.190**(0.102) (0.091) (0.042) (0.087) (0.087) (0.084)

property stolen -0.001 -0.001 -0.002(0.062) (0.053) (0.026)

mugged 0.017 0.036 0.007(0.142) (0.108) (0.058)

presence of gangs 0.029 0.003 0.012(0.081) (0.043) (0.033)

presence of drug trafficking/sales -0.077 0.064 -0.032

(0.067) (0.051) (0.027)1 victimization issue -0.151**

(0.054)2 victimization events -0.012

(0.057)3 victimization events 0.075

(0.095)4 victimization events 0.152

(0.123)stolen and/or mugged 0.021

(0.061)gangs and/or drug trafficking -0.002

(0.048)Personality trait No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Number of observations 3,855 3,254 3,855 3,859 3,850 3,737R2 0.222 0.605 0.223 0.610 0.609 0.607

note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Other dimensions of life satisfaction and types of insecurities – Gallup, individual

data, 20071 2 3 4 5 6

Nutritional insecurity -0.188*** -0.187*** -0.189*** -0.042** -0.043** -0.044**(0.016) (0.016) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.019)

Job insecurity -0.094*** -0.096*** -0.100*** -0.039** -0.042** -0.036**(0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.016) (0.017) (0.016)

1 victimization issues -0.007 -0.028(0.019) (0.021)

2 victimization events -0.015 -0.051***(0.017) (0.018)

3 victimization events -0.105*** -0.089***(0.027) (0.021)

4 victimization events -0.128*** -0.148***(0.043) (0.047)

stolen and/or mugged -0.072*** -0.057***(0.019) (0.017)

gangs and/or drug trafficking -0.032** -0.055***(0.014) (0.012)


note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Satisfaction with standard of living

Probit

Satisfaction with freedom to choose life

Probit


Life satisfaction (ladder question) and migration – Gallup, individual data

1 2 3 4 5 6OLS OLS OLS OLS OLS OLS

Family abroad 1 0.108** 0.061(0.053) (0.046)

Family abroad 2 0.082* 0.052(0.048) (0.047)

Help from abroad 0.240*** 0.128***(0.052) (0.045)

Personality trait factor 1.007*** 1.007*** 1.005***(0.013) (0.013) (0.013)

Availability of social networks 0.630*** 0.631*** 0.727*** 0.727*** 0.595*** 0.706***(0.071) (0.071) (0.059) (0.059) (0.070) (0.059)

Status of unemployment 0.114** 0.114** 0.056 0.056 0.111** 0.053(0.049) (0.049) (0.044) (0.044) (0.049) (0.044)

Presence of health problems -0.260*** -0.260*** -0.211*** -0.211*** -0.258*** -0.212***(0.081) (0.081) (0.048) (0.048) (0.082) (0.048)

Think religion is important 0.250*** 0.251*** 0.247*** 0.247*** 0.244*** 0.239***(0.071) (0.071) (0.061) (0.061) (0.071) (0.061)

Being married -0.067 -0.067 -0.050 -0.051 -0.062 -0.050(0.052) (0.052) (0.041) (0.041) (0.052) (0.042)

Being widow 0.113 0.114 0.140** 0.140** 0.118 0.145**(0.101) (0.101) (0.067) (0.067) (0.103) (0.068)

Experienced depression -0.666*** -0.666*** -0.654*** -0.655*** -0.654*** -0.645***(0.075) (0.075) (0.064) (0.064) (0.074) (0.062)


note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;


Satisfaction with living standards(1 if satisfied) and migration – Gallup, individual

data


1 2 5Probit Probit Probit

Family abroad 1 0.020(0.015)


Help from abroad 0.033***(0.012)

Availability of social networks 0.147*** 0.147*** 0.142***(0.019) (0.019) (0.019)

Status of unemployment 0.022** 0.022** 0.021**(0.009) (0.009) (0.009)

Presence of health problems -0.068*** -0.067*** -0.068***(0.015) (0.015) (0.015)

Think religion is important 0.061*** 0.061*** 0.062***(0.015) (0.015) (0.015)

Being married 0.027** 0.027** 0.027**(0.012) (0.012) (0.012)

Being widow 0.039 0.039 0.038(0.026) (0.026) (0.026)

Experienced depression -0.165*** -0.165*** -0.164***(0.017) (0.017) (0.017)

Number of observations 11,861 11,861 11,866R2 0.087 0.086 0.087

note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Satisfaction with freedom to choose(1 if satisfied) and migration – Gallup, individual

data



Family abroad 1 -0.003(0.010)

Family abroad 2 -0.003(0.008)

Help from abroad 0.016(0.010)

Availability of social networks 0.075*** 0.075*** 0.071***(0.015) (0.015) (0.014)

Status of unemployment 0.006 0.006 0.007(0.008) (0.008) (0.008)

Presence of health problems -0.024*** -0.024*** -0.024***(0.007) (0.007) (0.007)

Think religion is important 0.057*** 0.057*** 0.058***(0.016) (0.016) (0.016)

Being married 0.020* 0.020* 0.021*(0.011) (0.011) (0.011)

Being widow 0.024 0.024 0.021(0.016) (0.016) (0.015)

Experienced depression -0.055*** -0.055*** -0.054***(0.016) (0.016) (0.015)


note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Life satisfaction (ladder question), migration and types of insecurities – Gallup, individual data


Family abroad 1 0.054 0.081(0.110) (0.083)

Family abroad 2 0.034 0.086(0.091) (0.074)

Help from abroad 0.212*** 0.123***(0.073) (0.039)



Job Insecurity -0.366*** -0.366*** -0.157* -0.156* -0.354*** -0.150*(0.094) (0.093) (0.084) (0.084) (0.090) (0.081)

1 victimization issue -0.047 -0.048 -0.140*** -0.141*** -0.047 -0.135***(0.093) (0.093) (0.052) (0.053) (0.092) (0.051)

2 victimization events 0.008 0.008 -0.001 -0.002 0.000 -0.004(0.088) (0.088) (0.060) (0.060) (0.087) (0.059)

3 victimization events 0.048 0.049 0.103 0.101 0.018 0.089(0.104) (0.105) (0.091) (0.092) (0.110) (0.095)

4 victimization events -0.065 -0.065 0.164 0.163 -0.052 0.182(0.168) (0.168) (0.115) (0.116) (0.169) (0.124)


note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;


Satisfaction with living standards, migration and types of insecurities – Gallup, individual data






Nutritional insecurity -0.184*** -0.184*** -0.181***(0.016) (0.016) (0.016)

Job Insecurity -0.088*** -0.088*** -0.086***(0.025) (0.025) (0.025)

1 victimization issue -0.005 -0.005 -0.003(0.020) (0.020) (0.019)

2 victimization events -0.015 -0.014 -0.014(0.018) (0.018) (0.018)

3 victimization events -0.105*** -0.103*** -0.104***(0.028) (0.029) (0.030)

4 victimization events -0.128*** -0.128*** -0.125***(0.047) (0.047) (0.046)


note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Life satisfaction (ladder question), migration and types of insecurities – Gallup, individual data



X Family abroad 1 -0.093 -0.250(0.180) (0.160)

X Family abroad 2 -0.294 -0.282*(0.194) (0.154)

X Help from abroad -0.034 0.070(0.151) (0.131)

Job insecurity -0.411*** -0.420*** -0.207** -0.217** -0.327*** -0.166**(0.084) (0.086) (0.088) (0.088) (0.090) (0.081)

X Family abroad 1 0.294 0.332* -0.218** -0.218**(0.308) (0.176) (0.105) (0.105)

X Family abroad 2 0.319 0.357**(0.294) (0.166)

X Help from abroad -0.070 0.047(0.173) (0.094)

Personal insecurity -0.040 -0.050 0.061 0.063 0.028 0.060(0.077) (0.070) (0.070) (0.067) (0.085) (0.081)

X Family abroad 1 0.031 -0.155(0.144) (0.145)

X Family abroad 2 0.083 -0.149(0.131) (0.126)

X Help from abroad -0.167 -0.069(0.116) (0.106)

Family abroad 1 0.020 0.144(0.158) (0.104)

Family abroad 2 0.048 0.155*(0.146) (0.093)

Help from abroad 0.281** 0.114(0.116) (0.076)



note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Satisfaction with living standards, migration and types of insecurities – Gallup, individual data


Nutritional insecurity -0.199*** -0.199*** -0.204***(0.018) (0.019) (0.018)

X Family abroad 1 0.085***(0.023)

X Family abroad 2 0.073***(0.027)

X Help from abroad 0.053**(0.021)

Job insecurity -0.080*** -0.079*** -0.089***(0.025) (0.026) (0.025)

X Family abroad 1 -0.061(0.047)


X Help from abroad 0.004(0.028)

Personal insecurity -0.056*** -0.060*** -0.048**(0.021) (0.023) (0.023)

X Family abroad 1 -0.073**(0.031)


X Help from abroad -0.050*(0.030)





note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Life satisfaction and migration (proxy “Have you and your family considered to move abroad?”) Latinobarómetro, waves 2002, 2003

y 2004

Notes: Standard errors clustered at country and year level; Sample: waves 2002, 2003 and 2004 for column 1 and 2, only 2003 and 2004 for column 3 and 4; “Worried to lose your job” measure goes from 1 (least worried) to 4 (most worried); Control variable for health satisfaction is a scale of satisfaction with health status (from 0 to 4); “social networks” refer to a question asking whether the respondent trusts other people; Controls included: country fixed effects, socio-economic level of respondent (as reported by the interviewer), type of job of head, number of assets, dummy for whether respondent is interested in politics.

1 2 3 4OLS OLS OLS OLS

considered to move abroad -0.094*** -0.078*** -0.079*** -0.067***(0.012) (0.011) (0.018) (0.017)

"Worried of losing job?"step 1 "not worried" (omitted)

step 2 "just a bit worried" -0.067*** -0.064***(0.026) (0.020)

step 3 "worried" -0.154*** -0.147***(0.024) (0.020)

step 4 "very worried" -0.116*** -0.107***(0.027) (0.022)

married -0.005 -0.002 -0.014 -0.006(0.009) (0.009) (0.013) (0.014)

divorced -0.061*** -0.058*** -0.095*** -0.087***(0.016) (0.013) (0.025) (0.025)

trust 0.098*** 0.085*** 0.080*** 0.068***(0.016) (0.016) (0.015) (0.015)

democracy -0.041*** -0.035*** -0.041*** -0.035***(0.008) (0.006) (0.010) (0.009)

control for health satisfaction no yes no yes

Number of observations 35,211 34,729 19,084 18,845R2 0.105 0.129 0.114 0.137

note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Wellbeing and attitude towards immigrants– Gallup, individual data

1 2 3 4 5 6

All, 06 LAC, 06-07 All, 06 LAC, 06-07 All, 06 LAC, 06-07Country good place for immigrants 0.026 0.056* 0.058*** 0.051*** 0.101*** 0.068***

(0.019) (0.030) (0.008) (0.012) (0.009) (0.015)Personality trait factor 0.788*** 0.965***

(0.009) (0.017)Availability of social networks 0.555*** 0.695*** 0.173*** 0.144*** 0.059*** 0.058***

(0.026) (0.047) (0.009) (0.015) (0.008) (0.009)Status of unemployment 0.078*** 0.086** 0.009* 0.017*** 0.015** -0.003

(0.021) (0.036) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.007)Presence of health problems -0.273*** -0.265*** -0.050*** -0.060*** -0.023*** -0.035***

(0.016) (0.032) (0.008) (0.009) (0.008) (0.008)Think religion is important 0.095*** 0.184*** 0.066*** 0.061*** 0.038*** 0.052***

(0.021) (0.036) (0.008) (0.013) (0.009) (0.012)Being married 0.056*** 0.010 0.026*** 0.025*** 0.019*** 0.015*

(0.021) (0.028) (0.007) (0.009) (0.006) (0.008)Being widow -0.007 0.074 0.031** 0.057*** 0.020* 0.008

(0.030) (0.058) (0.014) (0.020) (0.011) (0.010)Experienced depression -0.512*** -0.595*** -0.150*** -0.161*** -0.081*** -0.049***

(0.028) (0.056) (0.010) (0.012) (0.010) (0.013)


note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;

Ladder Satisfaction with standard of living

Satisfaction with freedom to choose


Outline





5. Conclusions

Conclusions• Nutritional, income (job) and personal insecurity

negatively affect life satisfaction. • Households with migration experience seem to have

greater life satisfaction.• This result is robust to taking into account several

potentially important determinants of life satisfaction (income measures, health status, unemployment and availability of social networks).

• Evidence suggests that the nutritional insecurity is the component that plays the biggest role. The effect of job insecurity is still significant but smaller in magnitude.

Conclusions• Migration related questions do not seem to have any

relationship with individuals’ perception on their freedom to choose.

• Results hold, even when the different types of insecurities are included in the analysis.

• Finally, migration offsets nutritional insecurity, but amplifies job insecurity.

Documents

Migration and Wellbeing: Some reflections