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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Propensity Score Matching Results
Dependent variable
Income/ capita
Consumption/ capita
ATT
***
658.34
s.e.
575.19
500.73
ATU
334.48
ATE
366.76
Confirms descriptive statistics
ATT=Average treatment effect for treated; ATU=Average treatment effect for un-treated
ATE=Average treatment effect for population

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

12. Instrumental Variables Results
Dependent variable: Log income per capita
Instruments
Coefficient & p-value of treat_year
No of obs.
Anderson-Rubin Wald test p-value
Hansen J statistic p-value
Kleibergen-Paap F-statistic
Wealth 1990
House type 1990
0.24
(0.033)
1623
0.039
0.71
5.51
Water source 1990
0.25
(0.049)
0.043
0.82
4.20
Toilet type 1990
0.35
(0.014)
0.000
0.48
3.37
Rooms/ capita 1990
0.18
(0.065)
0.070
0.37
4.30
All the tests successful, although instruments could be stronger
Treat_year= number of years since the household has moved, 0 for rural non-movers
Other explanatory variables omitted for space reason

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

14. Faleminderit!