Understanding Attitudes Towards Migrants A Broader Perspective

Migration is a controversial issue. Reading of the popular media in virtually any country, alongside an array of opinion polls suggest that residents see controls on immigration as essential and that people would prefer to see existing rules on entry tightened rather than relaxed. This stands in contrast to the evidence which points to significant gains for movers and, in many cases, benefits also for destination and origin countries – as reviewed in the forthcoming Human Development Report 2009. This paper makes several important contributions to an already rich literature about public opinion and migration. It highlights that attitudes are not as monochrome as might initially appear. A more detailed analysis of the nature, patterns and correlates of opinions toward migration in both developed and developing countries shows that values favourable toward diversity are in fact widely held, albeit with important variations. We also cast important light on how policies toward migration and underlying structural characteristics affect attitudes. Moreover, as many migrants do not end up in developed or OECD countries, public opinions in developing countries are of interest. As far as we are aware, this paper is the first published attempt to explore attitudes in countries in all parts of the human development spectrum. While the data investigated is largely drawn from 2005/2006, we frame key questions in both a longer term perspective, and highlight attitudes towards migrants when jobs are scarce, which has heightened relevance during periods of recession.Immigration, human development, public opinion

Understanding Attitudes Towards Migrants: A Broader Perspective

Migration is a controversial issue. Reading of the popular media in virtually any country, alongside an array of opinion polls suggest that residents see controls on immigration as essential and that people would prefer to see existing rules on entry tightened rather than relaxed. This stands in contrast to the evidence which points to significant gains for movers and, in many cases, benefits also for destination and origin countries – as reviewed in the forthcoming Human Development Report 2009. This paper makes several important contributions to an already rich literature about public opinion and migration. It highlights that attitudes are not as monochrome as might initially appear. A more detailed analysis of the nature, patterns and correlates of opinions toward migration in both developed and developing countries shows that values favourable toward diversity are in fact widely held, albeit with important variations. We also cast important light on how policies toward migration and underlying structural characteristics affect attitudes. Moreover, as many migrants do not end up in developed or OECD countries, public opinions in developing countries are of interest. As far as we are aware, this paper is the first published attempt to explore attitudes in countries in all parts of the human development spectrum. While the data investigated is largely drawn from 2005/2006, we frame key questions in both a longer term perspective, and highlight attitudes towards migrants when jobs are scarce, which has heightened relevance during periods of recession.Immigration, human development, public opinion

Understanding Attitudes Towards Migrants A Broader Perspective

Migration is a controversial issue. Reading of the popular media in virtually any country, alongside an array of opinion polls suggest that residents see controls on immigration as essential and that people would prefer to see existing rules on entry tightened rather than relaxed. This stands in contrast to the evidence which points to significant gains for movers and, in many cases, benefits also for destination and origin countries – as reviewed in the forthcoming Human Development Report 2009. This paper makes several important contributions to an already rich literature about public opinion and migration. It highlights that attitudes are not as monochrome as might initially appear. A more detailed analysis of the nature, patterns and correlates of opinions toward migration in both developed and developing countries shows that values favourable toward diversity are in fact widely held, albeit with important variations. We also cast important light on how policies toward migration and underlying structural characteristics affect attitudes. Moreover, as many migrants do not end up in developed or OECD countries, public opinions in developing countries are of interest. As far as we are aware, this paper is the first published attempt to explore attitudes in countries in all parts of the human development spectrum. While the data investigated is largely drawn from 2005/2006, we frame key questions in both a longer term perspective, and highlight attitudes towards migrants when jobs are scarce, which has heightened relevance during periods of recession

Migration Choice under Risk and Liquidity Constraints

This paper develops and tests a migration choice model that incorporates two prominent migration strategies used by households facing risk and liquidity constraints. On the one hand, migration can be used as an ex-post risk-coping strategy after sudden negative income shocks. On the other hand, migration can be seen an as investment, but liquidity constraints may prevent households from paying up-front migration costs, in which case positive income shocks may increase migration. These diverging migratory responses to shocks are modeled within a dynamic migration choice framework that I test using a 20-year panel of internal migration decisions by 38,914 individuals in Indonesia. I document evidence that migration increases after contemporaneous negative income shocks as well as after an accumulation of preceding positive shocks. Consistent with the model, I find that migration after negative shocks is more often characterized by temporary moves to rural destinations and is more likely to be used by those with low levels of wealth, while investment migration is more likely to involve urban destinations, occur over longer distances, and be longer in duration. Structural estimation of the model reveals that migration costs are higher for those with lower levels of wealth and education, and suggests that the two migration strategies act as substitutes, meaning that those who migrate to cope with a negative shock are less likely to invest in migration. I use the structural estimates to simulate policy experiments of providing credit and subsidizing migration, and I explore the impact of increased weather shock intensity in order to better understand the possible impact of climate change on migration

Reevaluating Agricultural Productivity Gaps with Longitudinal Microdata

Recent research has pointed to large gaps in labor productivity between the agricultural and nonagricultural sectors in low-income countries, as well as between workers in rural and urban areas. Most estimates are based on national accounts or repeated cross-sections of micro-survey data, and as a result typically struggle to account for individual selection between sectors. This paper contributes to this literature using long-run individual-level panel data from two low-income countries (Indonesiaand Kenya). Accounting for individual fixed effects leads to much smaller estimated productivity gains from moving into the non-agricultural sector (or urban areas), reducing estimated gaps by over80 percent. Per capita consumption gaps between non-agricultural and agricultural sectors, as well as between urban and rural areas, are also close to zero once individual fixed effects are included. Estimated productivity gaps do not emerge up to five years after a move between sectors, nor are they larger in big cities. We evaluate whether these findings imply a re-assessment of the currentconventional wisdom regarding sectoral gaps, discuss how to reconcile them with existing crosssectional estimates, and consider implications for the desirability of sectoral reallocation of labor

Reevaluating Agricultural Productivity Gaps with Longitudinal Microdata

Recent research has pointed to large gaps in labor productivity between the agricultural and nonagricultural sectors in low-income countries, as well as between workers in rural and urban areas. Most estimates are based on national accounts or repeated cross-sections of micro-survey data, and as a result typically struggle to account for individual selection between sectors. This paper contributes to this literature using long-run individual-level panel data from two low-income countries (Indonesiaand Kenya). Accounting for individual fixed effects leads to much smaller estimated productivity gains from moving into the non-agricultural sector (or urban areas), reducing estimated gaps by over80 percent. Per capita consumption gaps between non-agricultural and agricultural sectors, as well as between urban and rural areas, are also close to zero once individual fixed effects are included. Estimated productivity gaps do not emerge up to five years after a move between sectors, nor are they larger in big cities. We evaluate whether these findings imply a re-assessment of the currentconventional wisdom regarding sectoral gaps, discuss how to reconcile them with existing crosssectional estimates, and consider implications for the desirability of sectoral reallocation of labor