Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/232820
Authors: 
Stark, Oded
Year of Publication: 
2021
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 14068
Abstract: 
In a recent article, "Reexamining the influence of conditional cash transfers on migration from a gendered lens," Hughes (2019) claimed that conditional cash transfers, CCT, limit the likelihood of migration by women, compensating them for giving up an attractive migration option. I question the analysis that lies behind this claim. I argue that in seeking to understand the likelihood of women migrating if they participate in a CCT program, issues of selectivity, endogeneity, and optimization cannot be set aside. In particular, it is not that receiving CCT curtails a migration option; it is that not contemplating migration encourages women to accept CCT. And if a household perspective is brought to bear, then a household's free choices weaken the appeal of migration to women. This reduction in appeal does not arise from an exogenously imposed curb but rather from endogenously determined preferences.
Subjects: 
women's migration
conditional cash transfers
selectivity and endogeneity
revision of the comparative advantage of household members
household's optimization
JEL: 
B54
D13
G51
J16
J61
O15
R23
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
97.38 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.