Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/234033 
Authors: 
Year of Publication: 
2021
Citation: 
[Journal:] Demography [ISSN:] 1533-7790 [Volume:] 58 [Issue:] 1 [Publisher:] Duke University Press [Place:] Durham, NC [Year:] 2021 [Pages:] 379-381
Publisher: 
Duke University Press, Durham, NC
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
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by-nc-nd Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version
Appears in Collections:

Files in This Item:
File
Size
164.01 kB





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