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, TX
April 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
1. The four dimensions of “Quality of Life”
2. Livability and migration
3. Satisfaction with life, vulnerabilities and migration
4. Econometric results
5. Conclusions
Veenhoven’s (2000) taxonomy of QoL
The Four Qualities of Life
Outer Quality
Inner Quality
Livability of
Life-ability
Life Chances
environment
of person
Utility
Satisfaction
Life Results
of life
with life
Focus on two QoL dimensions and their
relationship with migration
The Four Qualities of Life
Outer Quality
Inner Quality
Livability of
Life-ability
Life Chances
environment
of person
Utility
Satisfaction
Life Results
of life
with life
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
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
People below
poverty line
Yearly
inflation rate
Economic
index
Gini
Coefficient
Per capita
GNP
Outer quality of life chances
Livability
Public expenditure
on health
Subsidies and
other transfers
Social
index
Public expenditure
on education
Social
contributions
Outer quality of life chances
Livability
Political
rights
Rule of
law
Voice and
accountability
Political
index
Political
stability
Control over
corruption
Civil
Freedoms
Outer quality of life chances
Livability
• 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
Outer quality of life chances
Livability
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
Outer quality of life chances
Livability
Country
Chile
Uruguay
Costa Rica
Argentina
Belize
Panama
Brazil
Mexico
Colombia
Dominican Rep
Ecuador
Guyana
Peru
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Honduras
Venezuela
El Salvador
Guatemala
Paraguay
Economic Rank
1
2
5
6
3
7
13
8
10
4
9
17
11
18
20
14
12
15
16
19
Social Rank
9
6
2
1
10
11
4
13
3
20
14
5
15
7
8
16
12
19
17
18
Political Rank
1
3
2
7
4
5
8
9
17
6
14
12
10
13
16
15
20
11
19
18
Overall Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
6
Livability and net outflow of emigrants (% pop.):
Averages for 1995, 2000, and 2005
4
GUY
2
GTM
MEX
NIC
ECU
DOM
PER
0
URY
-2
COL
ARGBLZ
CHL
BOL
HND
BRA
SLV
PRY
VEN
PAN
CRI
0
5
10
livability ranking
Fitted values
15
net emigration (% of total)
20
20
Livability and net outflow of emigrants (rankings):
Averages for 1995, 2000, and 2005
GUY
GTM
NIC
MEX
15
ECU
DOM
BOL
PER
SLV
10
COL
PRY
HND
BLZ
URY
5
ARG
BRA
VEN
CHL
PAN
0
CRI
0
5
10
livability ranking
Fitted values
15
net emigration ranking
20
20
Livability ranking and percentage of population
living abroad in 2005
15
SLV
NIC
DOM
10
MEX
URY
COL
ECU
PRY
PAN
5
HND
GTM
BOL
CHL
PER
CRI
ARG
VEN
0
BRA
0
5
10
livability ranking
Fitted values
15
emigrants stock (% of total)
20
15
Livability and remittances as percentage of GDP:
2005
10
SLV
DOM
HND
5
GUY
NIC
ECU
GTM
PRY
0
BLZ
CHL
0
CRI
URY
MEXCOL
ARG
PER
BOL
PAN BRA
5
Fitted values
VEN
10
livability ranking
15
Workers' remittances (% of GDP)
20
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
Veenhoven’s taxonomy of QoL
The Four Qualities of Life
Outer Quality
Inner Quality
Livability of
Life-ability
Life Chances
environment
of person
Utility
Satisfaction
Life Results
of life
with life
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
Latinobarómetro
Gallup 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
1. 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.
AR
G
BL
Z
BO
BR L
C A
AN
C
H
C L
O
L
C
R
D I
O
M
EC
G U
TM
G
U
H Y
N
M D
EX
N
IC
PA
N
PE
R
PR
Y
SL
U V
R
Y
U
SA
VE
N
0
2
4
6
8
Life satisfaction (ladder question)
Note: Black bar is average value, white bar is standard deviation.
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
AR
G
BL
Z
BO
BR L
A
CA
N
CH
CO L
L
CR
DO I
M
EC
G U
TM
G
U
HN Y
M D
EX
NI
C
PA
N
PE
R
PR
Y
SL
V
UR
Y
US
A
VE
N
0
2
4
6
8
10
Box Plot of (current) life satisfaction
measure or ladder question
excludes outside values
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
AR
G
BL
Z
BO
BR L
C A
AN
C
H
C L
O
L
C
R
D I
O
M
EC
G U
TM
G
U
H Y
N
M D
EX
N
IC
PA
N
PE
R
PR
Y
SL
U V
R
Y
U
SA
VE
N
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Satisfaction with living standards
Note: Black bar is average value, white bar is standard deviation.
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
0
.2
.4
.6
Life Satisfaction – Latinobarómetro, waves 2001,
2003 and 2004
AR
G
L
A HL OL
BO BR C
C
C
R
I
D
X
U
D
M
M
O EC GT HN ME
N
IC
Y LV
Y
N
R
R VEN
PA PE PR S
U
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
1. The four dimensions of “Quality of Life”
2. Livability and migrations
3. Satisfaction with life, vulnerabilities and migration
4. Econometric results
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)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.2
.4
nutins_money
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.6
“Have there been times in the past 12 months
when you or your family have gone hungry?”
(proportion that answered YES)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.1
.2
nutins_hungry
.3
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.4
0
.2
.4
.6
Nutritional insecurity by income quintiles
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)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.1
.2
job_insec
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.3
0
.05
.1
.15
.2
.25
Income/job insecurity by income quintiles
1
2
3
4
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
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)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.2
.4
safe_walking
.6
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.8
“Have you had money or property stolen from you or
another household member within the past 12 months?”
(proportion that answered YES)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.1
.2
stolen
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.3
“Have you been assaulted or mugged within the
past 12 months?” (proportion that answered YES)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.05
.1
mugged
.15
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.2
“Are there gangs in the area where you
live?” (proportion that answered YES)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.2
.4
gangs
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.6
“Are there illicit drug trafficking or drug sales
in the area where you live?” (proportion that
answered YES)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CAN
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
USA
VEN
0
.2
.4
drug
.6
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.8
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Victimization indicators by income quintiles
1
2
3
Income quintiles
4
5
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.
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Incidence of different types of insecurities in
Latin America
NI money NI hungry
safe walking
stolen
mugged
gangs
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll 2007 wave.
drug
job_insec
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?
ab
ro
ad
2
H
el
p
fro
m
ab
ro
ad
Fa
m
ily
Fa
m
ily
ab
ro
ad
1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
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.
“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)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
0
.1
.2
family_abroad1
.3
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll 2007 wave.
.4
“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)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
0
.1
.2
.3
family_abroad2
.4
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll 2007 wave.
.5
“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)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CHL
COL
CRI
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRY
SLV
URY
0
.2
.4
help_abroad
.6
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll 2007 wave.
.8
“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)
ARG
BLZ
BOL
BRA
CHL
COL
CRI
CUB
DOM
ECU
GTM
GUY
HND
HTI
MEX
NIC
PAN
PER
PRI
PRY
SLV
TTO
URY
VEN
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
goodplace
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll 2007 wave.
1
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Migration related questions by income
quintile
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”.
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Types of insecurities according to “help from
abroad” question - Gallup
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”.
0
.2
.4
.6
Job insecurity and “Did you and your family seriously
considered that you all could live abroad?” - Latinobarómetro
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
1. The four dimensions of “Quality of Life”
2. Livability and migrations
3. Satisfaction with life, vulnerabilities and migration
4. Gallup World Poll and Latinobarómetro
5. Econometric results
6. Conclusions
8
DNK
4
5
6
7
FIN
CHE
NLD
CAN
NOR
SWE
AUS
BEL NZLISR
VEN
ESP
IRL
AUT
FRA USA
CRI
GBR SAU
ITA
ARE
BRA
DEU
PRI
MEX
SGP JPN
CZE
JOR ARG
CYP
PAN PAK
KWT
CHL
COL GRC
LTU
GTM
THA
TTO
HRV
SVN
DZA
URY
SLV
BLR
POL
HKG LBN
KAZ
PRT
HND
EST
IND BOL
MMR
IRNHUN
SVK
UZB
KOR VNM
MNE
MRT
MDA ECU
ZAFDOM
LAO
ROM
RUS
IDN
BIH
ZMB
PER
UKR BWA
SRB
AZEPRY
LVA
NGA
TUR
PHLMOZ
KGZ
ALB
TJK
MAR
SEN
NPL
GHA
MKD
YEM CHN
NIC
BGD LKA
ARM
BDI RWAAGO
MLI
MDG
CMR
BGR
BFA
GEO
ETH
HTI
TZASLE UGA
KHM
BEN
TGO
KEN
MWI
ZWE
NER
TCD
3
Life Satisfaction
Life satisfaction decreases with nutritional
insecurity…
0
.2
.4
Nutritional Insecurity
.6
Curve is a LOWESS smoother; bandwidth=0.6
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2006.
.8
…and with victimization…
8
DNK
VEN
IRN
MOZ
AGO
BDI
HTI
SLE
TCD
3
4
5
6
7
FIN
CHE
CAN
NORNLDAUS
NZLSWE
BEL
ISR
ESP
IRL
AUT
USA
FRA
CRI
SAU
GBR
ITA
ARE
BRA
DEU
PRI
MEX
JPN
SGP
CZE
ARG
JOR
CYP
JAM
TWNPAN
PAK
KWT
COL
MYS CHL
GRC
LTU
GTM
THA
TTO DZA
HRV
SVN
URY
KOR
SLV
BLR
POL
HKG KAZ
LBN
CUB
PRT
HND
EST
IND
MMR
VNM BOL
SVK
UZB MNE
HUN
MRT
KOS
ZAF DOM
LAO MDA
ROM
ECU
RUS
IDN
BIH ZMB PER
UKR
BWANGA
AZE
PRY SRB
PAL
LVA
TUR
PHL
KGZ
ALB
TJK
MAR
SEN
NPL YEM
GHA
MKD
NIC
LKA
ARMBGD
RWA
AFG
KEN
MDG MLI
CMRETHMWI
BGR
ZWE
BFA
GEO
NER
UGA
TZA
KHM
BEN
TGO
0
.1
.2
Assaulted or Mugged
.3
bandwidth = .8
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2006.
.4
But increases if person has a relative or
friend abroad he can count on
7.5
Lowess smoother
7
CRI
6.5
MEX
BLZ
GTM
COL
BRA
GUY
6
ARG
CHL
URY
5.5
PER
SLV
BOL
PRY
HND
5
Life satisfaction
PAN
ECU DOM
NIC
0
.1
.2
.3
bandwidth = .8
Source: Authors’ calculations using Gallup World Poll wave 2007.
.4
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
Nutritional insecurity
Job insecurity
property stolen
mugged
presence of gangs
presence of drug trafficking/sales
1
2
3
4
5
6
OLS
OLS
COLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
-0.690***
(0.113)
-0.390***
(0.102)
-0.001
(0.062)
0.017
(0.142)
0.029
(0.081)
-0.721***
(0.083)
-0.223**
(0.091)
-0.001
(0.053)
0.036
(0.108)
0.003
(0.043)
-0.283***
(0.045)
-0.159***
(0.042)
-0.002
(0.026)
0.007
(0.058)
0.012
(0.033)
-0.728***
(0.081)
-0.186**
(0.087)
-0.720***
(0.082)
-0.186**
(0.087)
-0.721***
(0.084)
-0.190**
(0.084)
-0.077
0.064
-0.032
(0.067)
(0.051)
(0.027)
-0.151**
(0.054)
-0.012
(0.057)
0.075
(0.095)
0.152
(0.123)
1 victimization issue
2 victimization events
3 victimization events
4 victimization events
stolen and/or mugged
0.021
(0.061)
gangs and/or drug trafficking
Personality trait
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
-0.002
(0.048)
Yes
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
3,855
0.222
3,254
0.605
3,855
0.223
3,859
0.610
3,850
0.609
3,737
0.607
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.
Other dimensions of life satisfaction and types of
insecurities – Gallup, individual data, 2007
1
Nutritional insecurity
Job insecurity
1 victimization issues
2 victimization events
3 victimization events
4 victimization events
2
4
5
6
Satisfaction with standard of living
Satisfaction with freedom to choose life
Probit
Probit
-0.188***
(0.016)
-0.094***
(0.025)
-0.007
(0.019)
-0.015
(0.017)
-0.105***
(0.027)
-0.128***
(0.043)
stolen and/or mugged
-0.187***
(0.016)
-0.096***
(0.025)
-0.189***
(0.018)
-0.100***
(0.025)
-0.042**
(0.018)
-0.039**
(0.016)
-0.028
(0.021)
-0.051***
(0.018)
-0.089***
(0.021)
-0.148***
(0.047)
-0.072***
(0.019)
gangs and/or drug trafficking
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
3
-0.043**
(0.018)
-0.042**
(0.017)
-0.057***
(0.017)
-0.032**
(0.014)
4,648
0.117
4,639
0.116
-0.044**
(0.019)
-0.036**
(0.016)
4,488
0.116
-0.055***
(0.012)
4,555
0.057
4,548
0.054
4,403
0.054
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.
Life satisfaction (ladder question) and migration –
Gallup, individual data
Family abroad 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
OLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
0.240***
(0.052)
0.108**
(0.053)
Family abroad 2
0.061
(0.046)
0.082*
(0.048)
0.052
(0.047)
Help from abroad
Personality trait factor
Availability of social networks
Status of unemployment
Presence of health problems
Think religion is important
Being married
Being widow
Experienced depression
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
0.630***
(0.071)
0.114**
(0.049)
-0.260***
(0.081)
0.250***
(0.071)
-0.067
(0.052)
0.113
(0.101)
-0.666***
(0.075)
0.631***
(0.071)
0.114**
(0.049)
-0.260***
(0.081)
0.251***
(0.071)
-0.067
(0.052)
0.114
(0.101)
-0.666***
(0.075)
1.007***
(0.013)
0.727***
(0.059)
0.056
(0.044)
-0.211***
(0.048)
0.247***
(0.061)
-0.050
(0.041)
0.140**
(0.067)
-0.654***
(0.064)
11,773
0.198
11,773
0.198
9,500
0.599
1.007***
(0.013)
0.727***
(0.059)
0.056
(0.044)
-0.211***
(0.048)
0.247***
(0.061)
-0.051
(0.041)
0.140**
(0.067)
-0.655***
(0.064)
0.595***
(0.070)
0.111**
(0.049)
-0.258***
(0.082)
0.244***
(0.071)
-0.062
(0.052)
0.118
(0.103)
-0.654***
(0.074)
0.128***
(0.045)
1.005***
(0.013)
0.706***
(0.059)
0.053
(0.044)
-0.212***
(0.048)
0.239***
(0.061)
-0.050
(0.042)
0.145**
(0.068)
-0.645***
(0.062)
9,500
0.598
11,779
0.198
9,508
0.598
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.
Satisfaction with living standards
(1 if satisfied) and migration – Gallup, individual data
Family abroad 1
1
2
5
Probit
Probit
Probit
0.020
(0.015)
Family abroad 2
0.011
(0.014)
Help from abroad
Availability of social networks
Status of unemployment
Presence of health problems
Think religion is important
Being married
Being widow
Experienced depression
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
0.147***
(0.019)
0.022**
(0.009)
-0.068***
(0.015)
0.061***
(0.015)
0.027**
(0.012)
0.039
(0.026)
-0.165***
(0.017)
0.147***
(0.019)
0.022**
(0.009)
-0.067***
(0.015)
0.061***
(0.015)
0.027**
(0.012)
0.039
(0.026)
-0.165***
(0.017)
0.033***
(0.012)
0.142***
(0.019)
0.021**
(0.009)
-0.068***
(0.015)
0.062***
(0.015)
0.027**
(0.012)
0.038
(0.026)
-0.164***
(0.017)
11,861
0.087
11,861
0.086
11,866
0.087
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.
Satisfaction with freedom to choose
(1 if satisfied) and migration – Gallup, individual data
Family abroad 1
1
2
5
Probit
Probit
Probit
-0.003
(0.010)
Family abroad 2
-0.003
(0.008)
Help from abroad
Availability of social networks
Status of unemployment
Presence of health problems
Think religion is important
Being married
Being widow
Experienced depression
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
0.075***
(0.015)
0.006
(0.008)
-0.024***
(0.007)
0.057***
(0.016)
0.020*
(0.011)
0.024
(0.016)
-0.055***
(0.016)
0.075***
(0.015)
0.006
(0.008)
-0.024***
(0.007)
0.057***
(0.016)
0.020*
(0.011)
0.024
(0.016)
-0.055***
(0.016)
0.016
(0.010)
0.071***
(0.014)
0.007
(0.008)
-0.024***
(0.007)
0.058***
(0.016)
0.021*
(0.011)
0.021
(0.015)
-0.054***
(0.015)
11,569
0.045
11,569
0.045
11,573
0.045
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.
Life satisfaction (ladder question), migration and types of insecurities – Gallup,
individual data
Family abroad 1
1
2
OLS
OLS
0.054
(0.110)
Family abroad 2
3
4
5
6
OLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
0.212***
(0.073)
0.081
(0.083)
0.034
(0.091)
0.086
(0.074)
Help from abroad
Personality trait factor
Nutritional insecurity
Job Insecurity
1 victimization issue
2 victimization events
3 victimization events
4 victimization events
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
-0.638***
(0.099)
-0.366***
(0.094)
-0.047
(0.093)
0.008
(0.088)
0.048
(0.104)
-0.065
(0.168)
-0.638***
(0.099)
-0.366***
(0.093)
-0.048
(0.093)
0.008
(0.088)
0.049
(0.105)
-0.065
(0.168)
0.992***
(0.018)
-0.694***
(0.080)
-0.157*
(0.084)
-0.140***
(0.052)
-0.001
(0.060)
0.103
(0.091)
0.164
(0.115)
4,560
0.230
4,560
0.230
3,843
0.621
0.992***
(0.018)
-0.694***
(0.080)
-0.156*
(0.084)
-0.141***
(0.053)
-0.002
(0.060)
0.101
(0.092)
0.163
(0.116)
-0.626***
(0.099)
-0.354***
(0.090)
-0.047
(0.092)
0.000
(0.087)
0.018
(0.110)
-0.052
(0.169)
0.123***
(0.039)
0.988***
(0.018)
-0.683***
(0.080)
-0.150*
(0.081)
-0.135***
(0.051)
-0.004
(0.059)
0.089
(0.095)
0.182
(0.124)
3,843
0.621
4,559
0.231
3,842
0.620
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.
Satisfaction with living standards, migration and types of
insecurities – Gallup, individual data
Family abroad 1
1
2
5
Probit
Probit
Probit
0.039
(0.026)
Family abroad 2
0.021
(0.026)
Help from abroad
Nutritional insecurity
Job Insecurity
1 victimization issue
2 victimization events
3 victimization events
4 victimization events
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
-0.184***
(0.016)
-0.088***
(0.025)
-0.005
(0.020)
-0.015
(0.018)
-0.105***
(0.028)
-0.128***
(0.047)
-0.184***
(0.016)
-0.088***
(0.025)
-0.005
(0.020)
-0.014
(0.018)
-0.103***
(0.029)
-0.128***
(0.047)
0.016
(0.017)
-0.181***
(0.016)
-0.086***
(0.025)
-0.003
(0.019)
-0.014
(0.018)
-0.104***
(0.030)
-0.125***
(0.046)
4,583
0.126
4,583
0.125
4,581
0.125
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.
Life satisfaction (ladder question), migration and types of insecurities – Gallup,
individual data
Nutritional insecurity
X Family abroad 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
OLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
OLS
-0.616***
(0.099)
-0.093
(0.180)
-0.577***
(0.098)
-0.645***
(0.072)
-0.250
(0.160)
-0.634***
(0.071)
-0.606***
(0.089)
-0.702***
(0.065)
-0.034
(0.151)
-0.327***
(0.090)
-0.218**
(0.105)
0.070
(0.131)
-0.166**
(0.081)
-0.218**
(0.105)
-0.070
(0.173)
0.028
(0.085)
0.047
(0.094)
0.060
(0.081)
-0.167
(0.116)
-0.069
(0.106)
0.281**
(0.116)
0.114
(0.076)
0.986***
(0.018)
4,550
0.231
3,833
0.619
X Family abroad 2
-0.294
(0.194)
-0.282*
(0.154)
X Help from abroad
Job insecurity
X Family abroad 1
-0.411***
(0.084)
0.294
(0.308)
X Family abroad 2
-0.420***
(0.086)
-0.207**
(0.088)
0.332*
(0.176)
0.319
(0.294)
-0.217**
(0.088)
0.357**
(0.166)
X Help from abroad
Personal insecurity
X Family abroad 1
-0.040
(0.077)
0.031
(0.144)
X Family abroad 2
-0.050
(0.070)
0.061
(0.070)
-0.155
(0.145)
0.083
(0.131)
0.063
(0.067)
-0.149
(0.126)
X Help from abroad
Family abroad 1
0.020
(0.158)
Family abroad 2
0.144
(0.104)
0.048
(0.146)
0.155*
(0.093)
Help from abroad
Personality trait factor
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
4,551
0.230
4,551
0.231
0.991***
(0.019)
0.991***
(0.019)
3,834
0.620
3,834
0.621
Satisfaction with living standards, migration and types of insecurities – Gallup,
individual data
Nutritional insecurity
X Family abroad 1
1
2
3
Probit
Probit
Probit
-0.199***
(0.018)
0.085***
(0.023)
-0.199***
(0.019)
-0.204***
(0.018)
X Family abroad 2
0.073***
(0.027)
X Help from abroad
Job insecurity
X Family abroad 1
-0.080***
(0.025)
-0.061
(0.047)
X Family abroad 2
-0.079***
(0.026)
-0.056
(0.044)
X Help from abroad
Personal insecurity
X Family abroad 1
-0.056***
(0.021)
-0.073**
(0.031)
X Family abroad 2
-0.060***
(0.023)
-0.050*
(0.030)
0.037
(0.027)
Family abroad 2
0.015
(0.027)
Help from abroad
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
0.004
(0.028)
-0.048**
(0.023)
-0.042
(0.030)
X Help from abroad
Family abroad 1
0.053**
(0.021)
-0.089***
(0.025)
0.008
(0.017)
4,574
0.127
4,574
0.126
4,572
0.126
Life satisfaction and migration (proxy “Have you and your family considered
to move abroad?”) Latinobarómetro, waves 2002, 2003 y 2004
considered to move abroad
1
OLS
-0.094***
(0.012)
2
OLS
-0.078***
(0.011)
3
OLS
-0.079***
(0.018)
4
OLS
-0.067***
(0.017)
-0.002
(0.009)
-0.058***
(0.013)
0.085***
(0.016)
-0.035***
(0.006)
-0.067***
(0.026)
-0.154***
(0.024)
-0.116***
(0.027)
-0.014
(0.013)
-0.095***
(0.025)
0.080***
(0.015)
-0.041***
(0.010)
-0.064***
(0.020)
-0.147***
(0.020)
-0.107***
(0.022)
-0.006
(0.014)
-0.087***
(0.025)
0.068***
(0.015)
-0.035***
(0.009)
"Worried of losing job?"
step 1 "not worried" (omitted)
step 2 "just a bit worried"
step 3 "worried"
step 4 "very worried"
married
divorced
trust
democracy
-0.005
(0.009)
-0.061***
(0.016)
0.098***
(0.016)
-0.041***
(0.008)
control for health satisfaction
no
yes
no
yes
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
35,211
0.105
34,729
0.129
19,084
0.114
18,845
0.137
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.
Wellbeing and attitude towards immigrants–
Gallup, individual data
1
2
Ladder
Country good place for immigrants
Personality trait factor
Availability of social networks
Status of unemployment
Presence of health problems
Think religion is important
Being married
Being widow
Experienced depression
Number of observations
R2
note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *;
3
4
Satisfaction with
standard of living
5
6
Satisfaction with
freedom to choose
All, 06
LAC, 06-07
All, 06
LAC, 06-07
All, 06
LAC, 06-07
0.026
(0.019)
0.788***
(0.009)
0.555***
(0.026)
0.078***
(0.021)
-0.273***
(0.016)
0.095***
(0.021)
0.056***
(0.021)
-0.007
(0.030)
-0.512***
(0.028)
0.056*
(0.030)
0.965***
(0.017)
0.695***
(0.047)
0.086**
(0.036)
-0.265***
(0.032)
0.184***
(0.036)
0.010
(0.028)
0.074
(0.058)
-0.595***
(0.056)
0.058***
(0.008)
0.051***
(0.012)
0.101***
(0.009)
0.068***
(0.015)
0.173***
(0.009)
0.009*
(0.006)
-0.050***
(0.008)
0.066***
(0.008)
0.026***
(0.007)
0.031**
(0.014)
-0.150***
(0.010)
0.144***
(0.015)
0.017***
(0.006)
-0.060***
(0.009)
0.061***
(0.013)
0.025***
(0.009)
0.057***
(0.020)
-0.161***
(0.012)
0.059***
(0.008)
0.015**
(0.006)
-0.023***
(0.008)
0.038***
(0.009)
0.019***
(0.006)
0.020*
(0.011)
-0.081***
(0.010)
0.058***
(0.009)
-0.003
(0.007)
-0.035***
(0.008)
0.052***
(0.012)
0.015*
(0.008)
0.008
(0.010)
-0.049***
(0.013)
47,250
0.667
17,680
0.568
57,171
0.176
21,934
0.088
55,569
0.134
22,070
0.066
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.
Outline
1. The four dimensions of “Quality of Life”
2. Livability and migrations
3. Satisfaction with life, vulnerabilities and migration
4. Econometric results
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.