Content uploaded by Jessica Hagen-Zanker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jessica Hagen-Zanker on Feb 03, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ: Migration for development and inequality
1
How do social protection
programmes in the Global
South affect migration
decisions? A review of the
literature
AUTHORS
Carmen Himmelstine, Research Fellow, ODI;
Jason Gagnon, Head of unit, Migration and skills, OECD Development Centre
Jessica Hagen-Zanker, Senior Research Fellow, ODI
WORKING PAPER
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
3
Contents
AUTHORS 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2
BOXES 5
TABLES 5
FIGURES 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
BY TYPE OF MIGRATION 9
BY TYPE OF PROGRAMME 10
INDIVIDUAL AND HOUSEHOLD LEVEL MEDIATING FACTORS 12
CONTEXTUAL MEDIATING FACTORS 15
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS 17
1. INTRODUCTION 22
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMING 24
3. REVIEW METHODOLOGY 28
4. FINDINGS 30
4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE BASE 30
4.2 BY TYPE OF MIGRATION 33
4.2.1 INTERNAL MIGRATION 34
4.2.2 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION 36
4.2.3 COMPARING INTERNAL AND INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION 37
4.2.4 TEMPORARY MIGRATION 38
4.3 BY TYPE OF SOCIAL PROTECTION 39
4.3.1 CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS 40
4.3.2 UNCONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS 41
4.3.3 NON-CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS 42
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
4
4.3.4 SOCIAL AND HEALTH INSURANCE 43
4.3.5 PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMMES AND EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEMES 43
5. FACTORS THAT MEDIATE IMPACT 45
5.1 INDIVIDUAL AND HOUSEHOLD LEVEL FACTORS 45
5.1.1 EDUCATION AND SKILL-LEVEL 45
5.1.2 GENDER 45
5.1.3 ETHNICITY 46
5.1.4 AGE 47
5.1.5 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND
WEALTH 47
5.2 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS 47
5.2.1 LOCAL LABOUR MARKETS 48
5.2.2. ATTRACTIVENESS OF DESTINATIONS 48
5.2.3 CULTURE OF MIGRATION 49
5.2.4 OTHER SHOCKS 49
5.3 PROGRAMME DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 49
5.3.1 PROGRAMME DESIGN 50
5.3.2 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION 61
5.4 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 63
6. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 64
6.1 POLICY IMPLICATIONS 64
6.2 SUGGESTED AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH 66
REFERENCES 69
ANNEX 1 SEARCH PROTOCOL 77
ANNEX 2 STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION ON
THE PROPENSITY TO MIGRATE AND AGGREGATE MIGRATION
FLOWS 79
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
5
Boxes, tables and figures
BOXES
Box 1. The literature on credit constraints and migration ......................................... 25
Box 2. Impact of social protection on remittances .................................................... 27
Box 3. methodological and data choices across the literature .................................. 29
TABLES
Tab 1. Key findings on type of migration flows ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Tab 2. Key findings on migration by programme ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Tab 3. Key findings on migration by individual and household mediating factor Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Tab 4. Key findings on migration Contextual mediating factor .. Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Tab 5. Key findings on design and implementation factors ....... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
FIGURES
Fig 1. How INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS MAKE DECISIONS ON
MIGRATION ............................................................................................................. 26
Fig 2. regional distribution of studies ........................................................................ 31
Fig 3. global distribution of studies ........................................................................... 31
Fig 4. social protection impact on migration ............................................................. 32
Fig 5. NUMBER OF STUDIES BY TYPE OF MIGRATION ...................................... 34
Fig 6. The IMPACT of social protection ON INTERNAL MIGRATION...................... 34
Fig 7. The IMPACT of social protection ON INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ........... 36
Fig 8. The IMPACT of social protection ON both internal and international
MIGRATION ............................................................................................................. 38
Fig 9. The IMPACT of social protection ON TEMPORARY MIGRATION ................. 39
Fig 10. social protection impact on migration by type of social protection programme
40
Fig 11. Migration outcomes according to conditions of local presence..................... 51
Fig 12. Migration outcomes according to target group ............................................. 53
Fig 13. Migration outcomes according to targeting level .......................................... 54
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
6
Fig 14. Migration outcomes according to geographic implementation ...................... 55
Fig 15. Migration outcomes according to type of region ........................................... 56
Fig 16. Migration outcomes according to amount transferred .................................. 57
Fig 17. Migration outcomes according to frequency of transfer ................................ 59
Fig 18. Migration outcomes according to type of benefit .......................................... 60
Fig 19. Migration outcomes and implementation issues ........................................... 62
Fig 20. Migration outcomes in the long-term ............................................................ 64
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Global interest on expanding social protection to low- and middle-income countries,
particularly since the early 2000s, has translated into many new initiatives across
countries and an ever-greater number of people covered.
Over the same period, international and internal migration have also continued
increasing worldwide. Migration, and the desire for change, arises from the need to
manage a wide range of socioeconomic risks. Migrating is often not the only option
available. In fact, most people do not aspire to migrate at all, while others do not
have the capacity to migrate. Providing access to alternative livelihood opportunities
and coping mechanisms may provide another option.
Migration often results from the need to ensure a job, a better and more steady
income and to protect one’s family against risks, all similar to the aims of social
protection, this paper reviews the literature on the links between the decision to
migrate and social protection coverage.
Social protection programmes are highly contextual, and the conditions, mechanisms
and specificities differ from country to country, and programme to programme. The
design and delivery of social protection programmes, such as who receives the
transfer, how much is transferred and the conditions under which the transfer is
made, are therefore highly relevant when discussing how they may influence
migration decisions.
This paper reviews the body of academic literature on the link between emigration
and social protection. It reviews 76 papers, covering 85 countries, published before
or in 2020. The following types of social protection programmes are reviewed:
Conditional cash transfers (CCTs)
Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs)
Non-contributory pensions
Social and health insurance schemes
Public works programmes
Other factors that are considered include the type of migration (international, internal,
temporary), individual and household characteristics (education, gender, ethnicity,
age, income), contextual characteristics (labour markets, attractiveness of
destinations, culture of migration, shocks), programme design (conditional presence,
target group, geographical scope, amount transferred, frequency, type of benefit) as
well as implementation and methodological concerns.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
8
While the literature does not necessarily consistently point to a coherent or linear link
between migration and social protection, the following overarching points can be
drawn from the findings:
Macro-economic conditions in both origin and destination countries matter.
They can potentially override any impact of social protection. For instance, when
poor local labour markets remain unchanged before and after a social protection
intervention is administered, any effect on the individual or household will be
temporary. Wage differentials between origin and host locations may also outweigh
the relative benefits of a social protection programme.
Findings are often counter-intuitive and counter assumptions by policy
makers. The effects are related to specific design factors and exact individual and
household profiles. For instance, CCTs may increase migration for certain profiles as
conditions may not target nor constrain those people in a household most prone to
migrate.
Pure cash transfers (including conditional transfers) are more likely to lead to
migration than ‘Cash Plus’ benefits. This includes transfers of skills, education
and health. Similarly, regular transfers are more likely to lead to migration, than
punctual or one-time transfers.
The impact of a social protection programme on migration may only
materialise in the long-term. For instance, a CCT that targets the education and
health of children may not have any short-term impacts on migration because
parents must stay home to ensure that health and school attendance conditions are
met for their children. However, once the children are adults, the additional education
and health benefits accrued will increase their potential to be mobile and find jobs
elsewhere. Such effects may therefore take 15-20 years.
We now provide a detailed summary of the findings of the review.
This review retrieved 76 studies that explicitly examine the impact of social
protection on migration decision-making, migration outcomes or aggregate migration
flows. There is no clear pattern emerging from these studies: 21 studies find that
access to social protection programmes have mixed outcomes on migration, 23
studies find that it decreases migration, 21 studies find that it increases migration,
while another 11 find that social protection programmes have no impact on
migration.
Key findings were assessed according to their consistency across various factors,
using the Shannon Information Criterion (SIC), which considers the evenness of the
distribution across the migration outcomes (increase, decrease, mixed findings and
no impact). A SIC of 0.2 or lower is considered consistent, whereas a SIC of 0.8 or
higher is considered inconsistent (see note below Table 1).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
9
BY TYPE OF MIGRATION
In general, there is very little consistency in the reviewed studies on the type of
migration (see Table 1), although there is slightly more consistency on international
migration than there is for internal migration, and in a few specific contexts, such as
the public pension in South Africa.
There were 36 studies investigating the impact of social protection on internal
migration: while 17 studies described a decrease in internal migration, a nearly equal
number of 18 described an increase; seven studies described a mixed impact of both
increases and decreases based on a number of specific factors, and ten showed no
impact. Moreover, the results do not seem to be related to a specific country context
or event nor the level of urbanisation or history of internal migration. Some patterns
of consistency were found for some programmes. For instance, all studies on South
Africa’s public pension found it led to an increase in internal migration, similarly for
three studies on Mexico’s Oportunidades programme.
Of the 33 studies investigating international migration, 13 find an increase, nine
find a decrease, while six conclude a mixed impact and five no impact at all.
The conclusions do not seem related to migration history, proximity to job-rich
countries, migration rates, or any specific event.
The papers were also reviewed for impacts on temporary migration, including
circular, temporary, seasonal, short-term or return migration. Altogether, there were
25 studies that mentioned a temporary migration context and findings are again
inconsistent, with ten concluding an increase, six a decrease, seven no impact
at all, and two suggesting a mix of impacts. Breaking this down by international
and internal migration reveals a much more consistent conclusion for international
migration, but not internal migration. For international temporary migration more
studies (six) suggested an increase in light of a social protection programme,
compared to only two studies suggesting a decrease, and two others concluding no
impact.
Type of
migration
Number of
studies
Consistency
of findings
Key findings
Internal
36
Inconsistent
18 studies find an increase in
internal migration, 17 a
decrease, seven mixed findings
and ten studies find no impact.
TAB 1. KEY FINDINGS ON TYPE OF MIGRATION FLOWS
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
10
International
17
Inconsistent
Nine studies find an increase in
international migration, 13 a
decrease, six mixed findings and
five studies find no impact.
Temporary
(circular,
temporary,
seasonal, short-
term, return)
25
Inconsistent
Ten studies find an increase in
some form of temporary
migration, six a decrease, two
mixed findings and seven studies
find no impact.
Note: Consistency of findings is assessed using the Shannon Information Criterion, which considers
the evenness of the distribution across the four possible outcomes: 1) increase, 2) decrease, 3) mixed
findings, 4) no impact. As such, ‘no impact’ is also considered an outcome. Studies that provide a
greater level of disaggregation are more likely to end up in the mixed category. Factors are then
classified from consistent (Shannon Information Criterion <=0.2) in five equally sized categories to
inconsistent (Shannon Information Criterion >=0.8).
BY TYPE OF PROGRAMME
Some interesting patterns emerge, when disaggregating the findings by type of
social protection programme. The most common programme covered in studies are
conditional cash transfers (CCTs). About half of the studies show an increase of
migration (8 studies) or a decrease (8 studies), while the other half of the
studies have found that access to CCTs have mixed outcomes on the
propensity to migrate (e.g. during different periods of time or producing different
kinds of migration flows). Three studies found no impact. As such, it is far from clear
whether CCTs increase or decrease the propensity to migrate. This finding also
comes out strongly when restricting scope to those studies that cover the same
programme (e.g. Oportunidades). The programme-specific analysis shows that
impacts can be different for different types of migration and household members and
depend on length of receipt and context.
For unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) the evidence base is much smaller and with
no clear patterns, showing mixed outcomes (2 studies), decreases in migration
(2 studies) and one study each showing an increase and no impact. The lack of
an overall pattern shows the importance of disaggregating findings e.g. by type of
migration flow, and understanding the underlying mechanisms of impacts.
Seven of the nine studies examining the effects of non-contributory pensions on
migration find an increase in migration by members of the household of a pensioner.
These findings are closely linked to family composition and gender of the beneficiary,
see mediating factors below.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
11
Slightly more than half of the nine studies on social insurance find that higher
coverage of social insurance is associated a decrease in migration (5 studies), with
three studies finding a mixed impact and one finding an increase. Social insurance is
linked with job formality and those with social-security coverage decided to stay
because they had jobs with benefits that were worth keeping. However, some
programmes also cover informal workers, where the patterns are less clear-cut.
The evidence on employment guarantee schemes is also mixed, while six
studies find a decrease in migration, another five find no impact, two mixed
outcomes and four finding an increase in migration. The evidence on the NREGA
scheme in India, for instance, shows mixed findings, with impact mediated by design
and implementation of the scheme. The studies highlight the importance of
disaggregating findings for different demographic groups; see discussion on
mediating factors below.
Programme
Number of
studies
Consistency of
findings
Key findings
CCTs
33
Inconsistent
8 studies find a decrease of
migration, 8 studies find an
increase, 14 studies find mixed
outcomes and 3 find no impact.
UCTs
7
Inconsistent
2 studies find mixed outcomes,
2 find decreases in migration
and 2 studies show an increase
and one shows no impact.
Non-
contributory
pension
9
Mainly
consistent in
increase
7 studies find an increase in
migration, 1 finds a decrease
and 1 no impact.
Social and
health
insurance
8
Mainly
consistent in
decrease
5 studies find a decrease in
migration, and 3 find mixed
outcomes.
Public works
and
employment
17
Inconsistent
6 studies find a decrease in
migration, 4 an increase, 5 find
TAB 2. KEY FINDINGS ON MIGRATION BY PROGRAMME
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
12
guarantee
schemes
no impact and two mixed
impact outcomes.
Note: Consistency of findings is assessed using the Shannon Information Criterion, which considers
the evenness of the distribution across the four possible outcomes: 1) increase, 2) decrease, 3) mixed
findings, 4) no impact. As such, ‘no impact’ is also considered an outcome. Studies that provide a
greater level of disaggregation are more likely to end up in the mixed category. Factors are then
classified from consistent (Shannon Information Criterion <=0.2) in five equally sized categories to
inconsistent (Shannon Information Criterion >=0.8).
INDIVIDUAL AND HOUSEHOLD LEVEL MEDIATING FACTORS
It is clear that impacts on migration depend on more than receipt of social protection,
they are mediated by i) individual and household factors, ii) contextual factors, iii)
programme design and implementation and iv) the methodology and data used.
The characteristics of social protection beneficiaries and their households matter in
explaining the effects on migration flows. Skill and education level can affect the
potential payoffs to be had from migration, credit constraints, but also the ability to
contribute to social insurance programmes. While on the whole those who had
higher education levels are more likely to migrate (e.g. Azuara; 2009), Angelucci
(2013) shows that unskilled migration increases as a result of Oportunidades in
Mexico because unskilled households face the greatest credit constraints.
Gender of both the beneficiary and (potential) migrant mediate migration outcomes.
Several studies show that female beneficiaries are more likely to share their
income with other household members, allowing other household members,
especially women, to migrate. Other studies suggest women are more likely to
migrate then men, especially when they are high skilled or the programmes have
enabled them to increase their human capital (Hidrobo et al., 2020; Parker and Volg,
2018). On the whole, studies on CCTs found that women had to stay behind to meet
conditions of the programmes as mothers and caregivers (Hughes, 2019; Ishikawa,
2014) or to support other household members participating in the public works
(Hoddinott et al., 2020).
Ethnicity is another factor that mediates the outcomes of social protection,
although the evidence is patchy. For example, de la Rocha (2009) found that
Oportunidades in the long-term increased internal migration of indigenous youths
who have less profitable job opportunities at home, while a study on China shows
that ethnic minorities are less likely to migrate as other barriers to migration e.g.
language or information gaps may be more critical than credit constraints (Howell,
2019). This means that it is important to understand the underlying mechanisms
driving these different outcomes for different ethnic groups.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
13
Age of the beneficiary may also mediate the effects of social protection programmes,
though the evidence on whether youth are more likely to migrate as a result of
social protection is mixed. One of the objectives of CCTs is to keep children and
youth at risk of dropping out of education in school. A number of studies indeed find
that CCTs reduce or delay migration in the short-term while children and youth
attend school and receive the cash benefit, likewise for other programmes, such as
the Business Grant Program in South Sudan (Muller et al., 2019). However, other
evidence suggests that social protection programmes have no effect on young
beneficiaries because they migrate without the knowledge and permission of their
guardians (Deshingkar et al., 2015).
In terms of household characteristics, various studies show that migration of indirect
beneficiaries (youths, young adults and head of households) belonging to beneficiary
households tend to increase, while older beneficiaries tend to stay (e.g. Gil-Garcia,
2019; Soares, 2011; Winters et al., 2005). Household with large numbers of children
tend not to migrate in the short-term, while these (some?) are completing their
studies (Aguilar et al., 2019). This shows that households implement different
strategies to diversify their income and to benefit from both social protection and
migration simultaneously, without having to compromise the benefits of one over the
other.
The effect of household income, poverty status, or social class is unclear.
Some studies have found that poorer and low-asset households tend to migrate
more than wealthier ones, as transfers loosen liquidity constraints (Cortina, 2014;
Mesnard, 2009; Tiwari and Winters, 2019). However, Chau et al., (2012) observed
an inverted U-shape relationship between average per capita income and migration,
in line with the general migration literature.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
14
Factor
Number of
studies
Consistency
of findings
Key findings
Education
6
Mainly
consistent in
increase
Four studies find that those with
greater education levels (e.g. as
a result of the programme) are
more likely to migrate. However,
two studies found that those with
greater skills, who can afford to
contribute to a social insurance
scheme, stay at home
Gender
14
Inconsistent
Female beneficiaries (particularly
those receiving a pension)
enable migration of other
household members and are
mostly more likely to migrate
themselves, though some
studies have mixed findings (e.g.
age mediates gender impacts).
Five studies found migration of
women decreased, for instance
because they had to stay behind
to meet conditions of the
programme.
Age
7
Mainly
consistent in
decrease
On the whole young beneficiaries
of social protection are less likely
to migrate in the short-term,
though three studies found an
increase of migration from youth.
Ethnicity
7
Inconsistent
No clear pattern emerges. Some
studies show that beneficiaries of
TAB 3. KEY FINDINGS ON MIGRATION BY INDIVIDUAL AND
HOUSEHOLD MEDIATING FACTOR
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
15
indigenous populations are more
likely to migrate, although
whether they prefer internal over
international migration remains
unclear.
Household
composition
23
Variation in
specification of
household
composition
doesn’t allow
for
assessment
Indirect beneficiaries in
beneficiary households are more
likely to migrate
Household
income/ wealth
13
Little
consistency
Seven studies find that poorer
households are more likely to
migrate as the social protection
programme helps them
overcome credit constraints,
while five find that the
programme is enough to meet
their basic needs so migration
decreases.
Note: Consistency of findings is assessed using the Shannon Information Criterion, which considers
the evenness of the distribution across the four possible outcomes: 1) increase, 2) decrease, 3) mixed
findings, 4) no impact. As such, ‘no impact’ is also considered an outcome. Studies that provide a
greater level of disaggregation are more likely to end up in the mixed category. Factors are then
classified from consistent (Shannon Information Criterion <=0.2) in five equally sized categories to
inconsistent (Shannon Information Criterion >=0.8).
CONTEXTUAL MEDIATING FACTORS
Contextual factors also mediate the impact of social protection programmes on
migration outcomes. Local labour markets and the availability of jobs can determine
the need to migrate and mediate the impact of social protection. When local jobs
are scarce or poorly paid, migration continues to take place regardless of the
provision of social protection and may even be used to finance migration (e.g.
Sienaert, 2008, Hirdrobo et al., 2020). These effects are also mediated by education
and may change over time. When social protection programmes also aim to
bolster education levels – as some CCTs do – over time, as beneficiary
populations become more educated, there may be greater incentives to
migration, if local labour markets do not adapt. Migration can also be mediated
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
16
by inequalities in access to the labour market or better paying jobs e.g. ethnic
minorities who face intersectional inequalities may be more likely to migrate (e.g. de
la Pena, 2017).
Likewise, the attractiveness of a destination (e.g. in terms of availability of jobs, wage
differentials and ease of migration) can explain why migration may continue or
increase after social protection receipt. When a destination becomes less attractive,
for instance due to greater border enforcements (Cortina, 2014; Latapi, 2000) or a
slow-moving economy (Cortina, 2014), the impact of participation in a social
protection programme may be felt more strongly. However, some exceptions on
MGNREGA show that migration decreases with social protection receipt, because
recipients have a preference for staying locally, even with jobs generated through the
programme being poorly paid (e.g. Papp, 2012; Parida, 2006; Ravi et al., 2012).
More generally, previous exposure to migration and a culture of migration may
explain why migration continues regardless of social protection participation (e.g., de
la Pena, 2017; Palacios and Rubio, 2012), particularly if there is uncertainty about
the future or the continuation of the programme (Curiel, 2000), with one exception
(Steklov et al., 2005). More generally, the social protection impact is mediated by the
social and cultural norms around the purpose and meaning of migration
(Himmelstine, 2017).
Finally, other shocks experienced by beneficiary households may explain why
households continued to migrate despite receiving social protection, with social
protection often used to overcome credit constraints. One study, however, observed
a decrease in migration in the face of climatic shocks, when Procampo transfers
were larger or more equally distributed (Chort and de la Rupelle (2019). Finally, cash
transfers can also facilitate migration in regions of conflict, as observed in Colombia
(Mesnard, 2009).
Factor
Number
of studies
Consistency
of findings
Key findings
Local labour
markets
6
Little
consistency
In three studies migration
increases or continues with poor
domestic/ local employment
prospects, even with the
provision of social protection.
TAB 4. KEY FINDINGS ON MIGRATION CONTEXTUAL MEDIATING
FACTOR
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
17
Attractiveness
of the
destination
21
Overwhelmingly
consistent in
increase
Migration continues or increases
for beneficiaries of social
protection when destinations are
more attractive e.g. in terms of
wage differentials. However,
some exceptions show that
migration decreases with social
protection receipt even if
migration destinations are
attractive for example because
they have a preference for
staying locally.
History and
culture of
migration
5
Little
consistency
Previous exposure to migration
and cultural and social norms
mediate migration aspirations
and can override social
protection impacts
Other shocks
experienced
9
Little
consistency
Other shocks e.g. climatic
shocks, conflict, can in a few
instances explain why migration
continues despite the provision
of social protection.
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS
On the whole, the design and implementation of social protection transfers does not
lead to consistent outcomes on migration.
In terms of design, studies consider i) conditionality (in particular whether presence
is required) , ii) specific type of beneficiary targeted, iii) geographic targeting, iv)
amount transferred, v) regularity of the transfer, and vi) whether the benefit is cash or
mixed/ non-cash.
Note: Consistency of findings is assessed using the Shannon Information Criterion, which considers
the evenness of the distribution across the four possible outcomes: 1) increase, 2) decrease, 3) mixed
findings, 4) no impact. As such, ‘no impact’ is also considered an outcome. Studies that provide a
greater level of disaggregation are more likely to end up in the mixed category. Factors are then
classified from consistent (Shannon Information Criterion <=0.2) in five equally sized categories to
inconsistent (Shannon Information Criterion >=0.8).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
18
While as discussed above, conditional transfers, on the whole, do not seem to have
different outcomes than unconditional transfers, the ‘presence requirement’ of many
CCTs may be a specific design element that could influence migration outcomes.
Surprisingly, the studies analysing presence requirements mostly find mixed
outcomes (suggesting reshuffling within the household) as well as both increases
and decreases in migration.
The link between conditional presence and migration may be related to the specific
beneficiary targeted within a household. The only target group where there is some
consistency in terms of findings are transfers targeted at the elderly (i.e. mostly
pensions), where a pension might allow another adult household member to migrate
(see discussions above on type of programme and household factors).
Not all programmes are nationally implemented and some might be focused on
specific regions (initially) or targeted at rural areas. There is more evidence of an
impact (both increase and decrease) for national programmes rather than specific
regional or rural ones.
There is little explicit evidence that either the amount transferred or its regularity are
clear determinants of the link between social protection and migration. Both low and
higher amounts lead to inconsistent findings. In terms of regularity, there is little
consistency for monthly transfers where most studies find an increase, perhaps
because regularity gives predictability and aids planning. Most of the few studies for
on-demand transfers (e.g. insurance) show that it reduces migration, though on the
whole, there is little consistency. Regular, less than monthly and one-time transfers
do not show any consistent patterns.
Finally, transfers can be purely cash or mixed/ non-cash. There is little consistency
for cash transfers, where most studies show an increase when the transfer is cash,
particularly for non-conditional transfers, perhaps being used to finance migration.
For mixed or non-cash benefits the findings are inconsistent.
One issue sufficiently covered in the literature is implementation.. While the literature
points out various implementation challenges, such as arbitrary targeting for a
programme in Indonesia (Tiwari and Winters, 2019) or corruption with regards to
NREGA, there are no consistent patterns for implementation issues and migration
outcomes.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
19
Factor
Number of
studies
Consistency
of findings
Key findings
No presence
required
40
Inconsistent
While the most studies find a
decrease in migration when no
presence is required (16), on the
whole findings are inconsistent.
Presence
required
29
Inconsistent
The most prevalent response is
mixed outcomes (11 studies),
perhaps as a result of reshuffling
of who migrates within a
household when a presence
requirement is in place.
Targeting
Children
29
Inconsistent
As children mostly do not migrate
independently, immediate effects
on migration outcomes are
unlikely.
Targeting
women/ girls
24
Inconsistent
There are no consistent
migration outcomes for transfers
targeting female beneficiaries.
Targeting
elderly
11
Little
consistency
A number of studies suggest that
benefits received by the elderly
can be used to finance migration
for another family member.
Targeting
extreme poor
51
Inconsistent
When the poorest are targeted,
transfer receipt does not
necessarily lead to an increase in
migration.
TAB 5. KEY FINDINGS ON DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
FACTORS
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
20
Targeting
nationally
51
Inconsistent
Most studies do show an impact
for nationally targeted
programmes, split across a
migration decrease, increase or
mixed findings
Targeting
specific regions
20
Inconsistent
There are no consistent patterns
for when specific regions are
targeted.
Targeting rural
regions only
30
Inconsistent
A third of studies show a
decrease, but on the whole
findings are inconsistent.
Transfer is low
amount
14
Inconsistent
Findings are inconsistent, with no
clear pattern for low transfers.
Transfer is high
amount
40
Inconsistent
Findings are inconsistent, with no
clear pattern for high transfers.
Monthly transfer
12
Little
consistency
There is a slight trend towards
increases in migration, perhaps
because regular transfers means
burdensome administration.
Regular, less
than monthly
27
Inconsistent
The majority of studies have
mixed findings.
One-time
transfer
18
Inconsistent
There are no consistent patterns.
Transfer is paid
on demand
6
Little
consistency
Most of the few studies for on-
demand transfers (e.g.
insurance) show that it reduces
migration.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
21
Cash transfers
20
Little
consistency
Most studies show an increase
when the transfer is cash,
particularly for non-conditional
ones, perhaps being used to
finance migration.
Mixed or non-
cash benefit
46
Inconsistent
Patterns on the whole are
inconsistent, with mixed findings
or decreases particularly
common
Implementation
issues
7
Inconsistent
When there are implementation
issues, studies find mostly no
impact (3) or an increase in
migration (2)
Note: Consistency of findings is assessed using the Shannon Information Criterion, which considers
the evenness of the distribution across the four possible outcomes: 1) increase, 2) decrease, 3) mixed
findings, 4) no impact. As such, ‘no impact’ is also considered an outcome. Studies that provide a
greater level of disaggregation are more likely to end up in the mixed category. Factors are then
classified from consistent (Shannon Information Criterion <=0.2) in five equally sized categories to
inconsistent (Shannon Information Criterion >=0.8).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
22
1. INTRODUCTION
The drivers of migration are complex, multi-layered and context-specific. Migration
occurs when there is a desire for change, resulting from an environment with limited
social and economic prospects, inequality, political and economic insecurity, conflict,
violence and human rights abuses, amongst other factors (Aslany et al., 2021;
Hagen-Zanker and Mallett, 2020). Such desire for change essentially arises from the
need to manage a wide range of socioeconomic risks (Gagnon and Hagen-Zanker,
2019; Stark, 1991).
Migration is not the only response to a desire for change, however. In fact, the vast
majority of people either do not aspire to migrate at all, or are “involuntarily
immobile”, that is they do not have the capacity to do so (Carling and Schewel,
2018). The aspiration to migrate is therefore not a sufficient condition for migration to
occur. Aspirations can only be realised when both the ability and capacity to migrate
are present. That is access to social networks, funds, knowledge and skills to do so
are available to a migrant (Carling, 2014, de Haas, 2010; de Haas, 2021).
As other options to migration exists, providing access to alternative livelihood
opportunities and coping mechanisms may give people other ways to manage socio-
economic risks. One policy area of particular interest in fostering an alternative route
to migration is through social protection mechanisms, the range of publicly mandated
actions that seek to address risk and vulnerability, often among poor and near-poor
households, such as pensions, child benefits, unemployment benefits or public
works programmes. Given the important role played by risk in the decision to
migrate, access to such coping mechanisms can affect the decision to migrate
(Hagen-Zanker et al., 2009; Sabates-Wheeler and Waite, 2003; Stecklov et al.,
2005; OECD, 2017a).
Social protection was for a long-time generally limited to high-income countries,
however, social protection mechanisms have expanded to low- and middle-income
countries over the past decades, with most countries in the world now having at least
one social protection programme. In fact, as of January 2022 more than 3,800 new
social protection measures were registered worldwide since the COVID-19 pandemic
began alone (Gentilini et al., 2022). Such expansion is also buoyed by closer
attention provided to social protection by donor countries; through the SDGs 1 (no
poverty - on social protection systems), 3 (good health - on universal health
coverage), 8 (decent work and economic growth - on social protection for families)
and 10 (reduced inequalities – on social protection policies) and the USP2030
agenda, a World Bank and ILO-led initiative to expand universal social protection
globally. However, major gaps remain across the world as four billion people remain
uncovered by any type of social protection (ILO, 2021).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
23
As global expansion in social protection continues so will policy interest on the
different, sometimes inadvertent, effects of such expansion. One of these potential
effects is an interaction with migration decision-making, that is (not) accessing social
protection may make it more/ less likely for (non) recipients to aspire and be able to
migrate. There are many potential pathways for this interaction, discussed in the next
section.
Identifying whether social protection programmes not only impact migration
decisions, but also whether the induced migration is internal or international is of
fundamental importance to policy, as it implies a different policy response. Internal
migration, especially from rural to urban areas, may form part of a natural
development pathway, consistent with the way most countries of the world have
developed. Return and circular movements are easier and more likely in domestic
settings. They may also reflect a more appropriate and efficient territorial distribution
of population and may therefore be even encouraged or supported. In fact, some
programmes are indeed designed with that in mind. International migration, on the
other hand, implies that citizens leave the country altogether, and requires a more
complex policy response to migration and development beyond one's borders,
including protection, consular services, but also promoting diasporic ties with the
development of the country through remittances, return and other types of
engagement.
This literature review provides a comprehensive overview of how social protection
programmes may influence migration outcomes, and an update to Hagen-Zanker
and Himmelstine (2013). The review also complements an article by Adhikari and
Gentilini (2018), which reviews 10 studies on social assistance that are specifically
impact evaluations and one by Clemens (2022), which is particularly focused on
conditional cash transfers.
More specifically the paper asks the question “What are the effects of publicly
mandated social protection programmes in countries of origin on migration?”,
considering migration decisions taken either by individuals or collectively at a
household level. This paper provides a review of the relevant quantitative and
qualitative English, French and Spanish literature in this area, focusing on the
evidence in low-, lower-middle- and upper-middle income countries, which includes
the 12 countries that are part of the Migration for Development and Equality (MIDEQ)
project. As such, it provides the evidence base linking social protection and
migration, before conducting novel primary data collection and analysis for the
MIDEQ Hub.
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides the analytical and theoretical
framing on how social protection and migration decision-making may be linked.
Section 3 presents the methodology used to review the literature, while Section 4
describes the evidence base, including by type of migration (internal, international, a
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
24
comparison of both, and temporary) and social protection programme (conditional
and unconditional cash transfers, non-contributory pensions, social and health
insurance, public works and employment guarantee schemes). Section 5 considers
the factors that might mediate the link between social protection and migration,
including those at the individual (education and skill-level, gender, ethnicity, and age)
and household levels, contextual factors, and social protection programme design
and implementation. The final section (6) concludes and draws out implications for
policy and gaps in the literature.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMING
Theoretical considerations and frameworks on migration decision-making have long
evolved. The earliest frameworks focused on a combination of push factors (e.g.,
poverty, conflict, inequalities) and pull factors (e.g. earnings, job opportunities, better
life conditions) (Ravenstein, 1889; Rossi, 1955; Harris and Todaro, 1970). In these
models, individual willingness to bear risk, the utility gained from migration and the
cost (real and otherwise) were (implicitly) considered part of decision-making. Social
and other behavioural mechanisms were eventually weaved into these frameworks
(Leslie and Richardson, 1961), but the frameworks notably remained theorised at the
individual level. The notion of economic decision-making was expanded to include
economic stability and risk. In the 1980s, a series of influential papers began
theorising migration decisions as complex and weaving several social and economic
factors at the individual but also household and community levels (Stark, 1991).
More recently, the literature has focused on the subjective and intangible aspects of
decision-making, including the role of feelings, perceptions, relationships and social
networks (Hagen-Zanker and Hennessey, 2021) and the instrumental (means-to-an-
end) and intrinsic (direct wellbeing) roles of migration (de Haas, 2021).
At its core, migration results from individual or household-level desire for change
(Carling and Talleraas, 2016). Figure 1 illustrates a simplified causal chain of
individual and household migration decision-making. The framework reflects the
nature of migration as a desire for change. Desire for change may stem from limited
prospects and economic opportunities or adverse circumstances in one's own direct
environment, such as political and economic insecurity, conflict, violence and abuse.
Such desire for change may then lead to migration, although it is not the only
possible response.
Furthermore, aspirations can only be realised when aspiring migrants have the ability
and capacity to migrate (Carling, 2014, de Haas, 2010). This includes having the
financial means, family support, a social network that can provide information and
other means of support, access to migration intermediaries (see Jones and Sha,
2020) and clear pathways for safe, regular and orderly migration. In fact, at the
cross-country level we see an inverted u-shape between out-migration and income
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
25
(Clemens, 2020). Migration is highest middle-income countries, with potential
migrants in low-income country having more limited capacity to migrate and those in
high-income countries having lower aspirations to migrate. This relates to the
broader body of literature on credit constraints and migration that is summarised in
Box 1.
Social protection can potentially ‘disrupt’ this causal chain. Figure 1 highlights
several areas where social protection may interact with the migration decision-
making chain (teal boxes). In fact, access to social protection may increase or
decrease the likelihood of migration.
BOX 1. THE LITERATURE ON CREDIT CONSTRAINTS AND
MIGRATION
A related body of research focuses on market failures that could be overcome via
migration. It has included, amongst others, credit and liquidity constraints (Stark,
1991; Rapoport, 2002), such as constraints driven by policies in other potential
destination countries (Marchal and Naiditch, 2016). Financial constraints prevent
lower skilled individuals from migrating, and therefore relaxing such constraints
may increase the rate of migration (Chiquiar and Hanson, 2005). In fact, when
credit is unavailable, wealth has a non-linear effect on migration, first increasing
and then decreases it (McKenzie and Rapoport, 2007), as also seen at the cross-
country level. The financial constraint tied to migration can lead to important effects
on the self-selection of migrants, and explains why migrants typically select from
the middle of the educational and wealth distributions in the country of origin
(Assuncao and Carvalho, 2010).
The fact that higher earnings or wealth in households living in developing
countries can either increase the opportunity cost of migration or relax financial
constraints has led to several empirical studies investigating which one of these
channels is empirically more viable, if any. These include studies on social
protection programmes and other interventions. For instance, studies have found
that randomized access to a microcredit program increases internal migration in
China (Cai, 2020), that access to credit plays an important role in male migration
in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (Singh, 2018), as well as in Viet Nam (Phan,
2012) and Mexico (Gorlach, 2019). Credit constraints may also alter migration
dynamics in other ways, including by reducing the duration of migration episodes
(Gorlach, 2019). Not all studies demonstrate financial constraints as being binding
for migration, however. A study on the age of mass migration (1850-1914) from
Europe to the United States showed that increases in parental wealth and
expected inheritance actually discouraged migration (Abramitzky et al., 2012).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
26
FIG 1. HOW INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS MAKE DECISIONS
ON MIGRATION
Source: Author elaboration of Carling and Talleraas (2016).
Note: Teal boxes highlight areas where social protection may influence migration behaviour.
Social protection can interact with the migration decision-making chain in a number
of different ways; it may increase or decrease the likelihood of migration. Social
protection can stabilise incomes and reduce risk, thus helping individuals and
households manage socio-economic shocks (Gagnon and Hagen-Zanker, 2019). A
reduction in risk and better economic stability can in turn reduce or prevent a desire
for change, and thus reduce aspirations to migrate.
Social protection can also affect aspirations for migration in other, indirect, ways. For
example, in the medium to long-term it can lead to an increase in household
member’s education, nutrition and health levels. As such, social protection might
also affect individual aspirations, principally when programmes increase education
levels and along with aspirations for better life conditions and success. When this
process overlaps with the existence of substantial differences in spatial
opportunities, aspirations to migrate may increase (De Haas, 2010; 2021).
Gaining access to social protection can provide an alternative or a complementary
strategy to a desire for change. Whether social protection is viewed as an alternative
to migration depends on the extent it is viewed as complementary or substitutable to
migration. These impacts are moderated in turn by the design of the social protection
programme (for instance, its scope and adequacy, whether it is conditional or
unconditional, its ease of access).
When seen as complementary to migration, the availability of social protection can
present an opportunity cost for migration, as access to social protection could be lost
when migrating (Stecklov et al., 2005). When viewed as a direct substitute for the
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
27
absence of social protection, income gained from migration replace formal pensions,
when effective retirement provisions are not available (Sana & Massey, 2000). This
debate is illustrated by the literature on social protection and remittances (see Box
2), where studies have observed that social protection could lead to a reduction in
remittances, or not where both incomes could complement each other.
Social protection can help lift the financial barrier that limits the ability to migrate.
Migration is costly, and many individuals and households may not be able to
overcome the associated financial constraint (see also Box 1). Social protection
helps overcome such constraints in direct and indirect ways. They help directly when
financial transfers provide the individual or household with fungible funds, thus
increasing the household budget, and providing the ability to finance migration
journeys. They may also help indirectly, when household savings saved by not
spending on health, education or other social needs, can contribute to the ability by
the household to channel funds towards financing migration.
The way these interactions takes place also depends on whether and how
individuals use and are knowledgeable of social protection policies. Individuals may
not, for instance, be aware of policies or programmes, have incomplete or incorrect
information or respond to them in unexpected ways (Hagen-Zanker and Mallett,
2022).
The provision of social protection can therefore have either positive or negative
impacts on the decision-making and the likelihood of internal and international
BOX 2. IMPACT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION ON REMITTANCES
Social protection can also interact with other dimensions of migration, in particular
remittances. Social protection and remittances can be seen as substitutes; both
transfers help households deal with shocks and risks (Hagen-Zanker and
Himmelstine, 2015). Of particular interest to policy-makers is the question of
whether the provision of social protection ‘crowds out’ (leads to a reduction in)
remittances. The evidence is quite mixed in this regard. There may be some
crowding out effects, for example a study on Vietnam shows that the provision of
public transfers crowds out altruistically motivated domestic and international
remittances (Hai Anh and Ying, 2017) and a review study on low and middle
income countries finds considerable evidence of crowding out across the 29
studies reviewed (Nicolov and Bonci, 2020). Another study argues that Puerto
Ricans in the USA send fewer remittances to relatives back home, compared to
other Latin-American immigrants, because of the wide-ranging public benefits
provided in Puerto Rico (Duany, 2010). Finally, a study on Colombia shows that
the receipt of remittances facilitates receiving households’ participation in
contributory social insurance (Cuadros-Meñaca, 2019).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
28
migration. This paper documents such impacts, and attempts to disentangle the
ways in which social protection and migration interact. It also pays attention to the
contextual, individual and household factors that mediate this interaction.
3. REVIEW METHODOLOGY
The scope of the paper encompasses both internal and international migration, in
and from low-, lower-middle and upper-middle income countries, undertaken for any
reason (e.g. forced, economic, family, study), although migration undertaken under
certain circumstances, such as conflict, are not necessarily taken within a framework
consistent with the choices illustrated in Figure 1.
This literature review focuses on empirical studies that study the effects of publicly
mandated social protection programmes
1
in countries of origin on: 1) the individual or
household propensity to migrate and 2) aggregate migration flows from low-, lower-
middle and upper-middle income countries. The scope includes studies that explored
the following potential migration outcomes: 1) aspirations to emigrate, 2) actual
emigration, 3) the decision to return, 4) the decision to undertake secondary
migration after an initial move within the country or to another country (step-
migration), and 5) the decision to migrate again, upon return, after having done so
previously.
The paper examines studies on publicly mandated social protection programmes
only, considering both de facto and de jure access to social protection, including
cash transfers, public works programmes, health insurance, health fee waivers,
unemployment insurance, school subsidies or fee waivers, and asset transfers. The
paper covers individual or household level awareness and receipt of social protection
programmes, but not the effects of community or national coverage.
The review process was based on a rigorous, evidence-focused literature review
methodology, building on the methodology originally developed in Hagen-Zanker and
Mallett (2013). A search protocol was set up and a formal literature search was
conducted using predefined search strings to explore three academic databases,
seven academic journals and 16 websites/search engines (see Annex 1 for a list).
The authors also consulted four experts in the field, which increased the number of
documents for consideration. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies
were also considered.
The review was conducted from October to December 2020, building on a previous
study authored by Hagen-Zanker and Himmelstine (2013).
2
The study places
particular emphasis on studies published since the 2013 review
3
. Additional
1
Publicly mandated means that requirements are listed in law or public regulatons; programmes may, however, be carried out
by public or private entities.
2
The studies reviewed in 2013 are also included in the current review.
3
Studies published before 2013 were also included, if they were not covered in the 2013 review, but the search algorithm was
not focused on the period preceding 2013.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
29
searches in both French and Spanish were also included, to grasp a wider range of
studies.
All studies that fit the search criteria were included without further assessment of
their quality, with the exception of studies that had no or limited information on
methodology and data sources, which were excluded, see Box 3. The study includes
academic articles, reports and dissertations. While most literature covered is written
in English, two studies were found written in Spanish and one study in French. It is
possible that some relevant studies may have been missed in other languages that
are not included in English language journals, databases or websites. However,
once the search methodology reached a point of saturation (i.e., were repeatedly
identifying the same documents), the authors were confident that the review would
represent a good sample of the relevant literature. An additional caveat is that of the
built-in subjectivity of the methodology. Studies were classified as per the
interpretation of the researchers who coded and analysed the data. While this opens
a certain amount of subjectivity in the study, challenging cases were extensively
discussed across the research team.
The search protocol replicated in Annex 1 resulted in 76 studies that explicitly
examine the impact of social protection on migration decision-making, migration
outcomes or aggregate migration flows, from low-, lower-middle and upper-middle
income countries. The search for relevant literature yielded more quantitative studies
BOX 3. METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA CHOICES ACROSS THE
LITERATURE
This review includes all studies that met the inclusion criteria, with no further
screening based on methodology or quality of studies, apart from studies with no
or limited information on methodology and data sources, as mentioned above.
While not the focus of this review it is clear that methodological choices by
authors can and do determine findings. Sampling choices, for example, are
important. For example, in the case of Oportunidades, some quantitative studies
(Angelucci, 2004; Stecklov et al., 2005) presented the results of six out of 32
states mainly located in the central part of the country, ignoring those states – like
Oaxaca and Chiapas – with a more longstanding history of migration and
particularly high levels of poverty (Azuara, 2009). Length of exposure to a
programme is critical, so when data was collected, and time period covered can
also affect findings. Studies may compare different components of programmes,
or programmes at different point in time, with transfer levels or other design
parameters differing. Where authors explicitly mention these methodological
choices, we have included them in our analysis, but we have not sought out
additional information on methodology or assessed relevance and rigour of
methodological choices.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
30
(56 studies) than qualitative studies (11) and mixed methods studies (9). The next
section describes the findings.
4. FINDINGS
4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE BASE
Since the Hagen-Zanker and Himmelstine review in 2013, many additional empirical
papers have been published, expanding the evidence base from 29 to 76 studies.
Annex 2 provides a summary of all relevant studies in this area that were retrieved in
our search process.
Figure 2 illustrates the geographical distribution of the studies reviewed in this paper.
It shows a strong concentration of studies in the Latin American and the Caribbean
region (39 studies) followed by Africa (23 studies), South Asia (10 studies), East Asia
and the Pacific (8 studies), Southwestern Europe (3 study), and two studies looking
at the effects of access to social protection on multiple countries
4
. Within Africa,
studies from East, West and Southern Africa are relatively well represented. This is
consistent with trends in social protection programming over the past decade, with
both a growing implementation of social protection programmes globally, particularly
in the African region (Andrews et al., 2018). Within Latin America and the Caribbean,
studies are well covered across North, South America and Central America,
reflecting the numerous evaluations that have been conducted in the continent on
conditional cash transfers (CCTs) since their inception from the late 1990s (Molina
Millán et al., 2019). Figure 3 shows the geographic distribution of the evidence on a
global scale. It highlights the extent to which studies are dominated by evidence from
Mexico (28 studies), India (10), South Africa (5) and China (5 studies), which
together account for more than half of the studies reviewed.
4
Number of countries do not sum to 76 as some studies assessed more than one country, and countries in several regions.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
31
FIG 2. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDIES
FIG 3. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDIES
39
23
10
8
32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Number of studies
Latin America and the Caribbean Africa
South Asia East Asia and the Pacific
Southestern Europe Multiple countries
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
32
In comparison to studies covered in the previous review by Hagen-Zanker and
Himmelstine (2013), the studies have evolved to include a greater focus on internal
migration than before (see section 1.2.1).
Regarding the type of social protection programmes assessed, the majority of
studies considered impacts from conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (33 studies),
followed by employment guarantee schemes (17 studies), non-contributory pensions
(9 studies), social and health insurance (8 studies), unconditional cash transfers
(UCTs) (7 studies), and two studies examining the effects of various social protection
schemes on migration.
Taken together, the studies do not paint a clear picture. In fact, the most common
finding from the studies was itself one of mixed outcomes: 23 studies find that
access to social protection programmes have decreased migration, 21 studies
find that it has mixed outcomes
5
, 21 studies find that it increases migration,
while another 11 find that social protection programmes have no (statistically
significant) impact on migration (see Figure 4).
FIG 4. SOCIAL PROTECTION IMPACT ON MIGRATION
5
We are classifying mixed outcomes studies as those that show a combination of impacts. For example, those that found
different migration outcomes over different periods of time (e.g. increase in the short-term and decrease in the long-term),
increase for some members of the household and decrease for others, different outcomes between demographic groups (men
and women, youths and older), or between regions, amongst other mixed outcomes.
23
21 21
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of studies
Outcomes on migration
Decreased Mixed outcomes Increase No impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
33
This differs from the earlier conclusions in Hagen-Zanker and Himmelstine (2013),
where slightly more studies found that social protection increases migration,
although the evidence base was also mixed. Even within country, or across the
same programme, the evidence is mixed. If we look at the country- or programme-
level, the effects on migration are not straightforward. For example, in the case of the
formerly named Mexican Progresa/Oportunidades/Prospera/ (from now on
Oportunidades) conditional cash transfer programme, the evidence is itself divided:
11 studies find mixed outcomes, 4 study finds an increase in migration, 3 studies find
a decrease in migration and 2 studies find no impact. This could be due in part to
contextual factors and the methodology of studies, as we will show below.
The next section unpacks the findings and analyses the evidence by type and timing
of migration flows and type of social protection programme.
4.2 BY TYPE OF MIGRATION
This section provides an overview of migration outcomes by type of migration. The
studies reviewed in this paper feature both internal (domestic) and international
migration (crossing of an international border), and on occasion, whether migration
was temporary, such as in circular and agricultural migration patterns.
Of the 76 papers reviewed, 36 papers (or nearly half, 47%) studied or found links
between social protection and internal migration, whereas 17 papers found links with
international migration. As internal migration is more common, globally, than
international migration, it is unsurprising that there are more studies on the subject of
social protection and migration focusing on internal movements. An additional 16
papers, found links with both internal and international migration, and seven papers
did not specify whether migration was internal or international (Figure 5). Overall, this
results in an overall base of 52 studies on internal migration (36+16 both types of
migration), and another 33 studies on international migration (17+16 both types of
migration), when studies concerning both types are included. Of the 76 papers
reviewed, 25 have explored temporary migration (see section 4.2.4)
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
34
FIG 5. NUMBER OF STUDIES BY TYPE OF MIGRATION
4.2.1 INTERNAL MIGRATION
The conclusions of the studies on internal migration are highly mixed. While 17 studies
described a decrease in internal migration, a nearly equal number of 18 described an
increase. Seven studies described a mixed impact of both increases and decreases
based on a number of specific factors, and 10 described situations where there was
no impact (Figure 6). Moreover, the results do not seem to be related to a specific
country context or event nor the level of urbanisation or history of internal migration.
FIG 6. THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION ON INTERNAL
MIGRATION
The fact that many studies conclude that there is an impact, irrespective of whether
that impact is an increase or decrease in internal migration, is not unexpected.
Internal migration, more so than international migration, is typically associated with a
shift of poorer, less productive individuals, nationally speaking, to areas of higher
productivity (Hagen-Zanker, 2008). As social protection typically targets poorer
households, one would therefore expect the migration dynamic to be high for internal
migration.
Within the group of studies concluding a decrease in internal migration, some of the
papers are focused on countries where the share of the population living in an urban
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
35
area is relatively high already, such as China (Li et al., 2018) and Brazil (Da Mota
Silveria Neto, 2008). In the context of rural-to-urban migration, the rate of growth of
urbanisation decreases as it converges towards 100%. In other words, we should
expect a higher rate of migration in countries with lower rates of urbanisation.
However, there are also several countries in which urbanisation rates are relatively
low, concluding a decrease in migration. This is the case for nearly all the studies on
India’s NREGA programme (Imbert and Papp, 2020; National Federation of Indian
Women, 2008; Papp, 2012; Parida, 2016; Deshingkar et al., 2010; Ravi et al., 2012),
as well as for studies on Ethiopia (Hoddinott et al., 2020) and Uganda (Oryema,
2006). The conclusions on the NREGA programme are in fact particularly consistent
in this manner. For the two African countries, this may be due to the fact that rural-to-
urban migration is not the only common, or even typical, type of internal movement
in these countries – and therefore the level of urbanisation in the country factors little
in the dynamic between migration and social protection. Rural-to-rural migration may
be common in contexts of agricultural and seasonal demands.
A small window of consistency was found with respect to studies on South Africa,
which all concluded an increase with respect to the national pension programme
(Posel et al., 2006; Sienaert, 2007; Sinaert, 2008; Inder and Maitra, 2004; Ardington
et al., 2009). There is also some consistency on Mexico, as three studies conclude
an increase in relation to the Oportunidades programme (Parker and Volg, 2018;
Rubalcava and Teruel, 2006; Aguilar et al., 2019).
In contrast to the study by Li et al. (2018), which concludes a decrease, three studies
conclude an increase in China, in relation to the impact of the Chinese pension
scheme (Chen, 2016; Eggleston et al., 2018) as well as the Chinese public works
programme (Chau et al., 2012). There does not seem to be any link between
urbanisation rates once again, as increases in internal migration were concluded in
Sierra Leone (Rosas and Sabarwal., 2016) and Mali (Hidrobo et al., 2020), where
urbanisation rates are low, as well as in Indonesia (Tiwari and Winters, 2019), where
urbanisation rates are high.
Looking more specifically at studies that investigated both internal and international
migration does not clarify any common conclusion either. Amongst those studies,
there were six studies on Mexico, three of which concluded an increase in internal
migration (Mahe, 2020; Tirado-Alcazar, 2014; De la Rocha, 2009), and three
conclude a decrease (Gil-Garcia, 2016; Gil-Garcia, 2019; Hughes, 2019). Other
studies do not shed any more of a pattern, as studies on Albania (Hagen-Zanker et
al., 2009) and Honduras (Molina et al., 2020) concluded a decrease, while a study
on Nicaragua concluded an increase in internal migration (Barham et al., 2018).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
36
4.2.2 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
The expectations regarding an impact on international migration in light of social
protection programmes are less straightforward than they are for internal migration.
International migration is costlier and requires more preparation and therefore
positive self-selection of individuals and households (assets, education, skills,
networks) undertaking international migration is slightly higher than it is for internal
migration. As social protection typically targets poor households, it is not clear
whether the benefits of social protection can help overcome financial and budget
constraints, and influence international migration.
The conclusions suggest that social protection programmes do indeed influence
international migration, but they do not offer much more clarity or consistency than
they did for internal migration. Of the 33 studies investigating international migration,
relatively fewer conclude a decrease (9) rather than an increase (13), while six
conclude a mixed impact and five no impact at all (Figure 7). The conclusions do not
seem related to migration history, proximity to job-rich countries, migration rates, or
any specific event.
FIG 7. THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION ON INTERNATIONAL
MIGRATION
In a bid for consistency, two major studies use macro data from a cross-country
dataset, focusing exclusively on global international migration and find a decrease in
international migration (Greenwood et al., 1999 and Greenwood and McDowell,
2011).
In addition, several of the studies focused on migration from Mexico to the US
conclude a decrease in international migration, including on the Oportunidades
programme (Gonzalez-Konig and Wodon, 2005; Sana and Hu, 2007), Fonden
Insurance Scheme (Chort and de la Rupelle, 2019) and Procampo programme
(Chort and de la Rupelle, 2019; Cuecuecha and Scott, 2009), further cementing
some sort of consistency. Another study concluding a fall in international migration
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
37
looks at the Philippines and its Pantawid ng Pamilyang Pilipino Programme (OECD,
2017b).
However, just like for internal migration, there are also several studies concluding
increases in migration as well, including a different study on Procampo in Mexico
(Cortina, 2014), the Ti Manman Cheri programme in Haiti (OECD, 2017d), the
Comorian Social Safety Net Programme (SSNP) (Gazeaud et al., 2019) and a cash-
for-food programme in Cambodia (OECD, 2017c).
Amongst the studies that looked at both international and internal migration, the
conclusions on international migration are not any clearer. While four studies
conclude a decrease in international migration from Mexico (Gil-Garcia, 2016; Gil-
Garcia, 2019; Hughes, 2019; Stecklov et al., 2005), three of them conclude an
increase (De la Rocha, 2009; Angelucci, 2004; Angelucci, 2013). Furthermore, a
study concludes a decrease in Albania (Hagen-Zanker et al., 2009), whereas other
studies conclude an increase in international migration from Honduras (Molina et al.,
2020) and Nicaragua (Barham et al., 2018).
4.2.3 COMPARING INTERNAL AND INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
A major issue with the comparisons and conclusions made above is that it is difficult
to isolate the comparison between internal and international migration. Several studies
focus on one or the other, and the studies that look at both often do so jointly, without
necessarily identifying separate effects for both.
This section looks at the studies that consider both internal and international migration
using the same datasets, and that also separately look at whether social programmes
affected one differently or in the same way as the other.
Studies that fell into these criteria totalled eight, which is a low number on which to
base the analysis. The conclusions do however point to a potential difference. As
shown in Figure 8, there were noticeably more studies showing an increase in both
internal and international migration (four for internal migration and five for international
migration) when focusing on this particular sub-set of the literature. However, what
this shows is that social protection programmes may influence an increase in
migration, regardless of whether it is internal or international, and does not conclude
a difference between internal or international migration itself.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
38
FIG 8. THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION ON BOTH INTERNAL
AND INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
4.2.4 TEMPORARY MIGRATION
In addition to whether social programmes induced internal or international migration is
the question of whether it was a temporary form of migration. One supposition is that
social programmes may help overcome financial constraints that allow for temporary
migration to gain a salary somewhere else, but then return home afterwards, perhaps
even repeatedly.
Few studies explicitly focus on temporary migration. Part of the reason is that it is
difficult to measure whether migration is temporary or not, also in part due to a lack of
a transversally used definition. When does migration become temporary? The
international statistical standard suggests a three- to twelve-month cut-off, but this is
not what independent researchers may necessarily use. Moreover, when a migrant
has left for less than three months, one cannot know whether the migration will be
temporary or not. Nevertheless, the studies included in this category include those
mentioning migration that is circular, temporary, seasonal or short-term, and whether
there was return migration - with the caveat that the counterfactual is not always
consistent. Typically, such studies are undertaken in a context where temporary
migration is common.
The studies conclude a higher incidence of temporary migration in light of social
protection, rather than a lower one. Altogether, there were 25 studies that mentioned
a temporary migration context, with ten concluding an increase, six a decrease, seven
no impact at all, and two suggesting a mix of impacts (Figure 9).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
39
FIG 9. THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION ON TEMPORARY
MIGRATION
Breaking the analysis on temporary migration further down by international and
internal migration reveals a much more consistent conclusion, particularly on
international migration where there is a marked difference in terms studies
suggested an increase in light of a social protection programme (six), compared to
only two suggesting a decrease, and two others concluding no impact. In terms of
internal migration, there are no conclusive differences between studies that show an
increase (four), those that show a decrease or mixed outcomes (two). In fact, the
largest number of studies showed that there was no impact on temporary migration
(five).
4.3 BY TYPE OF SOCIAL PROTECTION
The reviewed studies consider five distinct types of social protection programmes
and the findings are summarised in Figure 10 and discussed below.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
40
FIG 10. SOCIAL PROTECTION IMPACT ON MIGRATION BY TYPE
OF SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMME
4.3.1 CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS
Looking at five different CCTs, all of which are based in Latin America, the studies
find a variety of impacts (see Figure 10). About half of the studies show an increase
in migration (8 studies) or a decrease (8 studies), while the other half of the studies
find that access to CCTs have mixed outcomes on the propensity to migrate (e.g.
during different periods of time or producing different kinds of migration flows). Three
studies found no impact.
In Mexico, Procampo (which targets agricultural producers), increased household
income of poor households and thus relaxed budgetary constraints, allowing
beneficiaries or their household members to cover some of the initial costs
associated with migration to the United States (Cortina, 2014); (iii) the conditions fail
to keep all household members at home. In Nicaragua, for example, the RPS
transfer enabled migration of male adults – not constrained by any of the conditions
– during times of crisis (Winters et al., 2005); iv) improvements in human capital of
former beneficiaries in the long-term. For instance, beneficiaries of the RPS in
Nicaragua (Barham et al., 2018) and the Oportunidades in Mexico (Azuara, 2009)
migrated after having acquired more years of education; v) supporting financial
14
2
0
3
2
8
2
1
5
6
8
2
7
0
4
3
1 1
0
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Conditional cash
transfers
Unconditional cash
transfers
Noncontributory
pension
Social and health
insurance
Public works and
employment
guarantee schemes
Number of studies
Mixed outcomes Decreased Increase No impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
41
independence: the transfer enables young couples to form their own households
(Aguilar et al., 2019).
In contrast, seven other studies find a decrease in the propensity to migrate. It
appears that the conditions attached to the programme may reduce migration
(Behrman, Parker, & Todd, 2008; Gonzalez-Konig and Wondon, 2005; Stecklov et
al., 2005). In the cases where the transfer was deemed high enough, migration also
decreased; for example, for Bolsa Familia beneficiaries in Brazil (De Oliveira and
Chagas, 2018; Silveira-Neto and Azzoni, 2008) and Procampo beneficiaries in
Mexico (Cuecuecha and Scott, 2009; Gonzalez-Konig and Wodon, 2005). Similarly,
in the case of Honduras, Winters et al. (2006) suggests that young adults between
the ages of 15 and 29 could afford to leave their households and form new ones
within the locality as a result of the Family Assistance Programme (PRAF). CCTs
also reduced migration by providing a buffer during natural hazards such as droughts
(Chort and de la Rupelle, 2019).
It is far from clear whether CCTs increase or decrease the propensity to migrate,
even when looking at one single programme. The formerly named Oportunidades
programme offers a good example. Oportunidades was a CCT in Mexico (running
from 1997 to 2019) that provided a cash transfer to households with children, if
households ensured regular school attendance and visits to health clinics. Several
studies have found that while in the short-term Oportunidades reduced the migration
of beneficiaries or their household members receiving the educational component, in
the long-term their propensity to migrate increased to partake in higher education or
to find better-remunerated jobs when the economic conditions in the area of origin
did not improve (de la Rocha, 2009; Himmelstine, 2017; Parker and Vogl, 2018).
Outcomes are also mixed in terms of the kinds of migration. The results provided by
Angelucci (2004, 2013) showed that Oportunidades reduced credit constraints for
households that otherwise would have not been able to migrate to the United States.
The same study of Angelucci (2013) found no impact on internal migration because it
is a less-expensive investment. Oportunidades also had mixed outcomes on different
members of the household. While some direct beneficiaries (children and mothers)
did not migrate, other members of the household not bounded by the physical
conditions, did migrate (Gil-Garcia, 2019; Himmelstine, 2017; Hughes, 2019;
Ishikawa, 2014).
4.3.2 UNCONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS
The evidence on UCTs is geographically diverse with studies from China, Indonesia
and five different African countries. The evidence is less clear cut, as shown in
Figure 10. Migration increases in some cases by easing credit constraints, as
observed with the Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Kenya (Soares,
2011) and the Bantuan Langsung Tunai programme in Indonesia (Tiwari and
Winters, 2019). In contrast, migration decreased by improving the living conditions of
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
42
the household as observed in China (Howell, 2019). In South Sudan the expectation
to receive cash combined with business and life skills training reduced migration of
young women, although the cash was then not disbursed due to the intensification of
violence in the country (Muller et al., 2019).
For two studies, the evidence is mixed. In Mali, the Filets Sociaux (Jigisémèjiri)
programme increased internal migration of men by reducing credit constraints, but
reduced migration of women from vulnerable households (Hidrobo et al., 2020). In
Zambia, the Child Grant Programme decreased short-distance migration of men
from wealthier households during periods of extreme heat when agricultural or
service labour opportunities for these households reduce, while the cash smooths
consumption needs. At the same time, the programme increased migration of men
during cool periods, irrespective of their wealth, due to households taking advantage
of a regular income source that allow a household member to migrate under normal
climate conditions (Mueller et al., 2020).
For two other UCTs in Africa, access to the cash transfers seems to have had little
impact on the decision to migrate (Deshingkar et al., 2015; Sibson, 2011).
4.3.3 NON-CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS
In terms of non-contributory pension, there is only evidence on China, South Africa
and Uganda from nine studies, with seven showing an increase in internal migration.
Five examine the Old Age Grant scheme in South Africa, which is a non-contributory
pension for older persons. All five studies in the review show that the Old Age Grant
led to an increase in internal migration by members of the household of a pensioner.
The cash transfer made internal migration affordable to a member of these
households, particularly for working age women, as long as other members provide
care of the children in the household (Inder and Maitra, 2004; Posel et al., 2006).
In a study on China, evidence on the NRPS, a non-contributory pension for persons
aged 60 or above, is mixed. Some studies find that access to the pension scheme is
linked with higher internal migration of the beneficiaries' adult children since
pensioners can afford medical services and rely less upon support and care from
their children. However, it is still unclear whether migration increases when the
pensioner is in good (Chen, 2016) or in poor health (Eggleston et al., 2018). Another
study found that the NRPS reduces migration of adult children because the cash
reduces the pensioner’s farming intensity, particularly amongst men, and increases
the time spent in agriculture by adult children (Li et al., 2018).
The Ugandan Senior Citizen Grant, which targets persons aged 65 years and above,
has had no impact on the propensity to migrate of other household members since
the transfer is too small and highly unreliable (Walsham, 2020).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
43
4.3.4 SOCIAL AND HEALTH INSURANCE
The evidence on social and health insurance suggests that generally the higher the
coverage is in the country of origin, the less there is a need to migrate. A number of
macro-economic studies on access to social insurance in several countries (e.g.
Greenwood et al., 1999; OECD, 2017a), as well as in-depth studies on social
insurance programmes in Mexico and Albania (Hagen-Zanker et al., 2009; Sana and
Hu, 2007; Sana and Massey, 2000), find that an increase in social insurance
coverage is linked to a decrease in migration. Those with social insurance coverage
stay because they have jobs with benefits that were worth keeping. One exception is
OECD’s (2017a) finding indicating that in Costa Rica having health benefits through
one’s employment contract increases the likelihood of planning to migrate, probably
because these migrants have good job prospects both at home and abroad.
Although most migrants are young and do not contemplate retirement in their
decision to migrate, these studies consider social insurance as an equivalent
indicator of job formality.
Two studies on non-contributory health insurance, assess the effects of Mexico’s
Seguro Popular, a programme which provides access to public healthcare to the
uninsured, including those who are unemployed, self-employed or who work outside
the formal sector. Both studies found mixed outcomes. The programme did not affect
international migration to the USA, probably because the transfers are not large
enough to cover the healthcare needs of those affiliated and also due to the low
quality of healthcare services (Lopez-Garcia and Orraca-Romano, 2019; Mahe,
2020). Indeed, the economic rewards of international migration may be more
appealing than the risks of quitting an informal job. However, the programme also
increased the return migration of undocumented migrants from the USA (Lopez-
Garcia and Orraca-Romano, 2019), and increased internal migration (Mahe, 2020).
Further research is needed to understand whether migrants considered their access
to health insurance in their decisions to migrate or to return.
4.3.5 PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMMES AND EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEMES
The evidence on employment guarantee schemes has been growing in recent years.
Overall, the effect of such programmes on migration is inconsistent, with 6 studies
find a decrease in migration, 4 an increase, 5 find no impact and two mixed impact
outcomes.
The NREGA in India, a programme that provides up to 100 days of paid work to rural
households each year, has been the most researched in terms of its linkages to
migration as it considers limiting rural-urban migration as an explicit aim (Deshingkar
et al., 2010). The evidence suggests that the NREGA has not been as effective as
expected in reducing overall distress migration (internal migration in response to a
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
44
shock or stress). This was explained by several reasons. First, the additional income
gained through internal migration was higher than the salary provided through the
NREGA schemes (Jacob, 2008; Sudarshan et al., 2010). Second, the provision of
the actual number of days of work did not match the number promised by the
programme (Deshingkar et al., 2010). Third, certain implementation challenges
meant that people could not rely on NREGA and continued to favour migration as a
source of income (Deshingkar et al., 2010). Short-term seasonal internal migration in
India decreased in states that were able to offer a greater number of employment
days and where real wages rose (Centre for Science and Environment, 2008; Imber
and Papp, 2020; Papp, 2012). Even if some women earned less with the NREGA, it
offered them a steady and reliable flow of income as opposed to the uncertainties of
internal migration (Jacob, 2008). Another explanation could be that in certain
communities or social groups, social norms restrict women’s mobility and agency.
Evidence of other employment guarantee schemes have also contributed to the
debate even though migration is not a stated objective. Some studies have found
that such programmes are associated with a decrease in migration. The Productive
Safety Net Programme (PSNP) in Ethiopia provides a safety net for vulnerable
populations since it enables older persons to avoid migrating as a coping strategy
during the lean season (Deshingkar et al., 2015). It also enables adolescent girls
aged 12-18 years to avoid or delay migration related to marriage because they are
required to provide unpaid care and domestic chores to their households, while adult
females participate in public works (Hoddinott et al., 2020).
Other public works programmes appear to increase migration. The Social Safety Net
Programme (SSNP) in Comoros, which provides an average of 60 days of work per
year, increased migration to nearby wealthier Mayotte by reducing credit constraints
related to the cost of migration, of those who expect higher returns from migration
(Gazeaud et al., 2019). The Yigong-Daizhen programme in China, which does not
guarantee a fixed number of days of employment, increased migration by reducing
credit constraints of those neither too poor nor too rich to migrate (Chau et al., 2012).
Public works programmes which focus on youth as their main target participants,
have found mixed migration outcomes on youth themselves or on other members of
their household. In Sierra Leone, the Youth Employment Support Project, which
offers a maximum of 75 days of work to youths aged 15-35 years, increased
migration of other household members, particularly women (Rosas and Sabarwal,
2016). In Ghana, the Labour Intensive Public Work (LIPW) programme did not have
an effect on seasonal youth migration because the natural resource assets created
through the projects did not improve livelihoods during the dry season (Eshun and
Dichaba, 2019; Namara et al., 2018). However, qualitative evidence suggests some
level of reduction in seasonal migration as reported by project participants (Namara
et al., 2018).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
45
5. FACTORS THAT MEDIATE IMPACT
This section considers the factors that may mediate impacts and as such considers
potential explanations for the patterns described in the previous section. It considers
individual and household level factors, contextual factors and the role of programme
design and implementation. Findings from relevant studies are now discussed in
turn, as ever the evidence base is highly skewed towards studies from Latin America
(especially Mexico), South Africa and India.
5.1 INDIVIDUAL AND HOUSEHOLD LEVEL FACTORS
The studies in the evidence considered several individual and household-level
characteristics factor in on the link between social protection and migration:
education and skill level, gender, ethnicity, age and household characteristics.
5.1.1 EDUCATION AND SKILL-LEVEL
Amongst the six studies on education and skill level, two studies on social insurance
programmes show that those with more education and who are able to contribute to
the schemes are less likely to migrate (Greenwood et al., 1999; OECD, 2017a).
Angelucci (2013) shows that unskilled migration increases as a result of the
Oportunidades programme in Mexico because unskilled households face the
greatest financial constraints in funding the cost of migration. Moreover, in the long-
term individuals who have achieved greater years of education tend to migrate
looking for better job opportunities than those with fewer years of education (Azuara;
2009; Barham et al., 2018; Behrman et al., 2008; Gil-Garcia, 2019). De la Rocha
(2009) found that at the end of eligibility to the Oportunidades programme, the most
skilled individuals migrated to the USA and various urban destinations in Mexico,
while the least skilled tended to stay in their locations of origin.
5.1.2 GENDER
The gender of beneficiaries has a variety of outcomes amongst the 14 studies that
consider this. The effect of the South African Old Age Pension programme, for
example, suggests that, when the beneficiating pensioner was a woman, the
likelihood of other members of the household migrating increased, especially that of
other women (Ardington et al., 2009; Posel et al., 2006; Sienaert, 2008). That is
because female beneficiaries usually shared their income with other members of the
household or with absent members as well as looking after children when needed
(Posel et al., 2006).
Gender was also found to be a significant factor influencing migration outcomes. In
the case of CCTs, women tend to be tied to the home by the conditions of the
programmes as mothers and caregivers, finding themselves unable to migrate
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
46
(Hughes, 2019; Ishikawa, 2014). Likewise, in Ethiopia, adolescent girls reduced their
migration because they were required to assist with household chores, while their
mothers were involved in public works programmes (Hoddinott et al., 2020). In India,
the NREGA represented an important safety net that reduced the migration of poor
and vulnerable women (Deshingkar et al., 2010), but generally did not change the
propensity to migrate of men (Sudarshan et al., 2010).
However, other studies have found that women benefitting from cash transfers have
a higher propensity to migrate than men, especially when they are high-skilled or the
programmes have enabled them to increase their human capital (Hidrobo et al.,
2020; Parker and Volg, 2018). In contrast, evidence on the Old Age Pension in
China suggests that the pension increased migration of adult sons but not that of
adult daughters. This is because the decision to migrate for adult daughters may still
rely on their husbands’ families, while adult sons (who follow the traditional norm to
provide old-age support to parents) are able to migrate when the pensioner can
afford health services rather than relying on their children’s care when they were ill
(Chen, 2016; Eggleston et al (2018).
5.1.3 ETHNICITY
The impact of social protection on migration is different according to ethnicity,
although the evidence is patchy, considered in just seven studies. In the long-term,
PRAF in Honduras reduced domestic migration of male indigenous youths (95
percent of whom in the sample were Lenca) to urban areas, while it increased
international migration of non-indigenous (Molina et al., 2020). Similarly, Howell
(2019), observed that the Minimum Living Standard in China decreased internal
migration for most ethnic minority groups (including Hui, Tibetan, Uyghur, Miao,
Zhuang, amongst others), but not for the Han majority possibly because poorer
ethnic minorities face additional information and language barriers to migrate or due
to cultural or religious preferences that make poorer ethnic minorities less likely to
migrate even after credit constraints are reduced (see Box 1). In contrast, de la
Rocha (2009) found that in the long-term, the Oportunidades programme increased
internal migration in Mexico of indigenous youths (including Pima and Rarámuri in
Chihuahua; Yaqui, Mayo and Guarijío in Sonora; Mixes, Mazatecos, Chinantecos,
Mixtecos and Afro-Mestizos in Oaxaca; and Tzotzil, Tojolobal and Chol in Chiapas)
who have less profitable job opportunities in their region of origin. In the case of non-
indigenous youths (mestizos), although they also migrate internally or to the USA,
they have less pressure to do so as a considerable number of young mestizos had
access to employment in existing businesses in their areas of origin, either because
family members or trusted acquaintances owned them (Ibid).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
47
5.1.4 AGE
Seven studies consider age of the beneficiary, which is likely to influence migration.
The elderly are more likely to stay at home and younger people are more likely to
leave (see Deshingkar et al., 2015). Social protection programmes can reduce
migration of direct young beneficiaries as intended by CCTs, which usually target
children and youth at risk of dropping out of primary or secondary schooling. Studies
have observed that CCTs reduce or delay migration in the short-term while children
and youth attend school and receive the cash benefit, as was observed by the
evidence of the Oportunidades programme in Mexico (Aguilar et al., 2019; Ishikawa,
2014). Similarly, in South Sudan, the Youth Start-up Business Grant Program
reduced migration of young women, who expected the grant, and would have
migrated in the absence of the programme (Muller et al., 2019). However, other
evidence suggests that CCTs or UCTs have no effect on young beneficiaries
because they migrate without the knowledge and permission of their guardians
(Deshingkar et al., 2015).
5.1.5 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND HOUSEHOLD
INCOME AND WEALTH
In terms of household characteristics, there are 23 studies with diverse specifications
and findings. Various studies show that migration of indirect beneficiaries (youths,
young adults and head of households) belonging to beneficiary households tend to
increase, while older beneficiaries tend to stay (e.g. Gil-Garcia, 2019; Soares, 2011;
Winters et al., 2005). Household with large numbers of children tend not to migrate in
the short-term, while these are completing their studies (Aguilar et al., 2019). This
shows that households implement different strategies to diversify their income and to
benefit from both social protection and migration simultaneously, without having to
compromise the benefits of one over the other.
Linkages between migration and household income are not straightforward amongst
those that receive social protection (13 studies on this). Some of the studies have
found that poorer and low-asset households tend to migrate more than wealthier
ones, as transfers loosen liquidity constraints (Cortina, 2014; Mesnard, 2009; Tiwari
and Winters, 2019). However, Chau et al., (2012) observed an inverted U-shape
relationship between average per capita income and migration, meaning that those
not too poor neither too rich were the most likely to migrate.
5.2 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
Contextual factors also mediate the impact of social protection programmes on
migration outcomes. The studies mainly considered local labour markets,
attractiveness of destinations, a culture of migration and exposure to other shocks.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
48
5.2.1 LOCAL LABOUR MARKETS
Local labour markets and the availability of jobs can determine the need to migrate
and mediate the impact of social protection – six studies considered this. For
instance, health insurance has no impact on migration to the US from Mexico
because migration driven by contextual factors including low wages, low-status jobs
and poor working conditions (Lopez-Garcia and Orraca-Romano, 2019), similarly
with regards to an unconditional cash transfer in Niger (Sibson, 2019). The
Procampo programme in Mexico, on the other hand, reduced migration outflows to a
greater extent at times when the Mexican economy was flourishing (Cortina, 2014).
In deprived areas of origin, with poor employment prospects, the transfer can be
used to finance migration, as documented in studies on South Africa (e.g. Sienaert,
2008) and women living in remote communities in Mali, with few economic
opportunities nearby (Hirdrobo et al., 2020).
When social protection programmes also aim to bolster education levels – as some
CCTs do – over time, as beneficiary populations become more educated, there may
be greater incentives to migration, if local labour markets do not adapt. In a study
that looked at the impact of participation in CCTs, RPS in Nicaragua found that ten
years after first participating in the programme, permanent migration increased to
secure higher paying jobs that beneficiaries can now access with their improved
education levels (Barham et al., 2018). This is echoed in a number of studies on
Mexico, with increases in migration for those who completed school (Behrman et al.,
2008), those with increased marginal productivity as a result of Oportunidades
(Azuara, 2009) and female children of former Oportunidades beneficiaries who
benefited from the education and other components (Parker and Volg, 2018).
Migration can also be mediated by inequalities in access to the labour market or
better paying jobs. Two ethnographic studies from Mexico show that it is the
indigenous population, who face intersectional inequalities, who show an increase in
migration (de la Pena, 2017), particularly after their education levels have increased
(de la Rocha, 2009).
5.2.2. ATTRACTIVENESS OF DESTINATIONS
Likewise, the availability of jobs and wage differentials with major destinations at
different points in time can explain why migration may continue or increase after
social protection receipt. The majority of the 21 studies that considered this show
that migration continues or increases for beneficiaries of social protection when
destinations are more attractive, for instance, in terms of income that can be earned.
Two studies show that US-Mexico income differences facilitated an increase in
migration (Angelucci (2013) and that some beneficiaries may even drop out of school
and Prospera programme, attracted by higher incomes (Gil-Garcia, 2019). When a
destination becomes less attractive, for instance due to greater border enforcements
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
49
(Cortina, 2014; Latapi, 2000) or a slow-moving economy (Cortina, 2014) the impact
of participation in a social protection programme may be felt more strongly.
5.2.3 CULTURE OF MIGRATION
More generally, previous exposure to migration and a culture of migration may
explain why migration just continues regardless of social protection participation (e.g.
de la Rocha, 2009; de la Pena, 2017; Palacios and Rubio, 2012), particularly if there
is uncertainty about the future or the continuation of the programme (Curiel, 2000).
Where migration is easier or lower in cost due to vicinity to the border, migration may
be higher (Ishikawa, 2014). However, one study on Mexico actually finds larger
negative impacts of social protection in villages with larger migration networks
(Steklov et al., 2005). More generally, the impact social protection can have depends
on the migration history within a village and the social and cultural norms around the
purpose and meaning of migration. For instance, in Mexican villages with a strong
history of educational migration, beneficiaries are likely to complete the programme
but then migrate to study (Himmelstine, 2017).
5.2.4 OTHER SHOCKS
Finally, other shocks experienced by beneficiary households may explain migration
outcomes (nine studies on this). In Nicaragua, during the coffee crisis when farmer’s
incomes suddenly dropped, the conditional cash transfer PRAF allowed beneficiary
households to overcome credit constraints and migrate (Winters et al., 2005; see
Box 1). During the 2008 financial crisis, Mexican households with long exposure to
Oportunidades continued migrating as the programme provided a regular income
(Gil-Garcia, 2016; Himmelstine, 2017). A study on Zambia showed that cash
transfers can be used as a climate change adaptation strategy, enabling poorer
households to migrate to urban centres in hot periods (Mueller et al., 2020). Another
study on Mexico found that migration was linked to climatic shocks; however, larger
transfers of Procampo or a more equal distribution of transfers led to a decrease in
migration (Chort and de la Rupelle (2019). Finally, cash transfers can also facilitate
migration in regions of conflict. In Colombia, in high-conflict communities, migration
increases after cash transfer receipt as it loosens beneficiaries’ credit constraints
(Mesnard, 2009).
5.3 PROGRAMME DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The way social protection programmes are designed and implemented may also
influence the way such programmes affect migration outcomes (Adhikari and
Gentilini, 2018; Clemens, 2022; OECD, 2017). Although social protection
programmes are often not designed with mobility outcomes in mind, they may
include explicit objectives, and target the reduction of migration by including mobility
restrictions. Typically, however, it is other design features that inadvertently influence
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
50
the decision to migrate or not. This section reviews the evidence in the literature of
the links between specific design features in social protection programme as well as
the way they are implemented with migration outcomes.
5.3.1 PROGRAMME DESIGN
There are many ways the design of social protection programmes can theoretically
influence migration outcomes. These include whether interventions are conditional or
not, what those conditions are, who they target, whether they are nationally or locally
implemented, their periodicity (or whether they are a one-time transfer only), the
amount transferred, their portability and the type of benefit transferred or made
available.
The research literature does not explicitly investigate much if any of these design
features as possible reasons for the link between migration and social protection
programmes. However, conclusions in the research literature often allude implicitly to
such links, and the following paragraphs summarise the most important and
widespread arguments.
CONDITIONAL PRESENCE IN LOCALITY OF PROGRAMME
6
Several social protection programmes include specific conditions and criteria, in
order for individuals and households to benefit from them. Conditional cash
transfers, for instance, have become a common way for authorities to deliver some
form of social protection or benefit, while ensuring that individuals and households
fulfil obligations, such as school presence or a healthy nutritional in-take, that will
maximise the returns to the social investment being made. The criteria typically
involve the presence of the beneficiary or his\her child, such as health-related check-
ups, vaccinations and school presence. Failure of fulfilling such conditions can lead
to cancellation of the benefit.
While cash transfers may favour international migration by either relaxing liquidity,
credit, and risk constraints, they may also reduce the propensity to migrate by
increasing the opportunity cost of leaving – unless conditions are such that any adult
may receive the transfer. Adding conditions may therefore increase the opportunity
cost of leaving, and reduce the propensity of migration. Conditions can involve a
placed-based policy, such as the requirement of registering for the benefit locally,
providing evidence of a local residence, or providing regular in-person check-ins –
and the research literature is not always clear on whether such conditions are in
effect or not.
6
See also Clemens (2022), who also considers design features of CCTs, in particular the conditional presence feature.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
51
An earlier comparison between unconditional and conditional cash transfers
suggests that making transfers conditional or unconditional does not necessarily lead
to different outcomes on migration. There are several reasons for this indifference,
that may hide the fact that conditionality may indeed influence migration.
Someone else in the household that is not directly related to the benefit,
migrated, as the benefits accrued through the social protection programme may
be fungible;
The conditions were not necessarily tied to physical presence;
The migration outcome that was documented happened several years later, due
to the benefits accrued by the programme (such as an increase in human
capital).
Based on the literature reviewed, placed-based requirements in social protection
systems do indeed seem to influence migration outcomes (Figure 11).
FIG 11. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO CONDITIONS OF
LOCAL PRESENCE
Source: authors’ compilation
There are generally more papers based on programmes where such requirements
do not (seem to) exist, perhaps because they are more common (40 programmes
analysed with no such conditions, vs. 29 with such conditions). The breakdown
between whether such conditions exist and are linked with migration outcomes is not
very clear, however. When presence is not required, there are more studies
suggesting that migration decreases or does not impact migration outcomes,
whereas when local presence is required, mixed outcomes are more prevalent. This
may be due to the fact that there is some shuffling within the household on who may
or may not migrate when mobility restrictions are included – leading to some
members leaving and others reducing their propensity to migrate (e.g., based on
gender roles in the household, or age). A mixed outcome, for instance, could be an
increase in a certain type of profile and a decrease in another (e.g., based on
gender).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
52
Breaking down the group of mixed outcome papers reveals that many of the papers
linked with higher migration outcomes are also those investigating programmes with
conditions of presence required, such as the Mexican Oportunidades programme.
For example, Angelucci (2004), Angelucci (2013), Gil-Garcia (2016), Ishkawa (2014),
Stecklov et al. (2005) and Tirado-Alcazar (2014) all allude to some form of increase
or for some specific sub-group, suggesting that, relative to no presence required,
programmes requiring presence are more likely to increase the propensity to migrate
– in spite of theory suggesting otherwise.
Another conclusion from the literature is that it local presence required by an
individual does not even limit the migration of that same individual. Several papers
on the NREGA programme suggest that despite the requirement of remaining locally
to work and benefit from the programme, many benefiters migrate as soon as they
are no longer benefiting from the programme.
The link between conditional presence and migration may be related to whether the
programme is targeted at the household or individual level, and more specifically, the
targeted group of such programmes.
TARGET GROUP
Beyond the conditionality of transfers and benefits, the target group, determined on
the basis of geographical, household or individual characteristics, may influence the
outcome. In fact, as an extension of the above discussion on conditional presence,
pre-conditions such as a poverty, may help dictate whether social protection has an
effect on migration or not. Cash transfer target groups, for instance, are typically and
perhaps unsurprisingly poor, low-asset households e.g. Comoros’ cash-for-work
programme targets poor and lower educated households (Gazeaud et al, 2019).
As such, underlying circumstances of poverty and inequality of the target groups
may drive migration as a prerequisite. Careful evaluation and econometric design is
required to untangle whether the programme had an effect on migration – which is
often not possible due to the lack of appropriate data to do so.
Summarising the literature and looking more specifically at target groups does not
reveal any additional trend in the link between migration and social programmes.
Whether programmes target children, youth, women\girls, the elderly or extreme
poverty\nutrition, it does not seem to determine whether social protection
programmes affect migration outcomes (Figure 12).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
53
FIG 12. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO TARGET GROUP
Source: authors’ compilation
However, in a select few papers, inadvertent and randomised heterogeneity in
income allows to summarise that the poorest, lowest asset households are typically
more likely to have had an emigrant in the household – that is have a member leave
- even amongst the group of poor households. The evaluation of the Bantuan
Langsung Tunai programme in Indonesia (Tiwari and Winters, 2019) provides a
good example, as it was implemented quickly and without adequate data on poverty
to allow for poverty targeting. The programme allowed (inadvertently) for a wider
targeting, and confirms that low-asset households are most likely to use the transfers
to migrate. Another example is the effect of the cash transfers on migration from
Comoros to Mayotte, where there was a significantly larger effect for households
with low levels of savings or risk-aversion, suggesting that the cash transfers eased
liquidity and risk constraints for poorer households (Gazeaud et al. 2019).
In some cases, target households are not necessarily only based on income, but
also on their (potential) vulnerability to poverty. For instance, in Kenya, the
conditional transfer programme evaluated by Soares (2011) is also based on the
presence of orphans and vulnerable children in the household. The transfer
increased the likelihood of adult migration from the household – providing some
evidence that social protection programmes can lead to higher migration rates even
when income and wealth are not explicitly targeted.
Two specific target groups are worth underlining, as they underpin a different
scenario in the social protection-migration relationship: children and the elderly. In
the case of many CCTs, children are the design targets. This is the case, for
instance, for the Mexican Oportunidades programme, as well as the PRAF
(Honduras) and RPS (Nicaragua) programmes. As children are unlikely to migrate
independently, short-term or immediate effects on migration outcomes may be
unlikely. The elderly, and specifically the many studies that exist on both the South
African old-age pension and the Chinese New Rural Pension Scheme, provide
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
54
another example of a specifically targeted group. As funds are fungible, it is
unsurprising to see that the additional household finances increase migration of
other members, often the benefiters’ adult children. All studies on the South African
OAP conclude a general rise in migration of working age adults, and two of the three
studies reviewed on the NRPS found that an adult child was more likely to migrate if
their parent was benefiting from the pension.
The main design feature through which migration decisions are influenced may not
necessarily be as specific as a group, but may lie on whether the programme is
designed on household vs. individual characteristics. By looking more generally at
whether the target of the benefit was provided based on household or individual
characteristics, it becomes a little clearer that the propensity to migrate is higher in
the context of an individual-level benefit, such as pension programmes, whereas the
propensity to migrate in the context of a household level benefit is rather mixed
(Figure 13).
FIG 13. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO TARGETING
LEVEL
Source: authors’ compilation
GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE
Not all programmes are nationally implemented, and in cases where they are, the
rollout of the programme is typically done step-by-step, region-by-region, or targets
only rural areas. For example, the Mexican Oportunidades programme was slowly
expanded from 506 localities to national coverage from 1997 to 2000. Moreover, not
all 506 localities were targeted as programme treatment areas, as 186 remained
control localities (and then became treatment localities later in 1999), which could
then serve for evaluation. Several researchers have exploited such variation in the
910
17
5
18
1
9
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
household-level individual-level
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
55
roll-out of Oportunidades in their identification and evaluation design, such as Aguilar
et al. (2019). Other programmes where this was also the case include the Chinese
NRPS, which began with 320 pilot counties in 2009, covered 838 counties by the
end of 2010 and then virtually all of rural China by the end of 2012 (Eggleston et al,
2018).
Some programmes are geographically targeted as a matter of design, such as the
Ghanaian Labour Intensive Public Work (LIPW) (Ghana), which targets the North of
Ghana, and primarily agricultural areas affected by severe dry seasons (Eshun and
Dichaba, 2019). On the other hand, programmes may not intend to be
geographically inclined, but due to spatial inequalities in their design, they become
so as with the Brazilian Bolsa Familia programme initially being implemented in the
North-eastern regions, which are poorer than those in the South-East (De Oliveira
and Chagas, 2018). The Ethiopian PSNP also does not operate everywhere in
Ethiopia, as it is focused on administrative units (woredas) which historically have
been drought-prone recipients of food aid (Hoddinott et al., 2020).
Whether programmes are nationally or only regionally implemented may therefore
affect their link with migration outcomes
7
(see figure 14).
FIG 14. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHIC
IMPLEMENTATION
Source: authors’ compilation
7
In addition, partial implementation of programmes geographically could also spur internal migration, theoretically, as people
move to benefit from the programme. In fact, the MSCTS programme in Malawi led to attracting migration to households that
were benefiting from it (papers covering in-migration flows are not reviewed here). In the literature reviewed here, there is little
to suggest such dynamics typically occur.
16
3
15
7
15
3
5
7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
national specific region(s)
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
56
Reviewing the literature, there is more evidence of an impact (both increase and
decrease) in contexts of national programmes rather than specific regional ones –
including those targeting rural areas only. In fact, there is a disproportionate number
of papers suggesting that there is no impact on migration in specifically targeted
regional programmes. One likely explanation is that a household may still benefit
from the programme in their new locality in national programmes, whereas this may
not be the case if the programme is regionally targeted. In fact, across the literature
reviewed, nationally implemented programmes seem to show little difference across
their impact on increases and decreases in migration. When programmes are
implemented regionally on the other hand, programmes seem to decrease migration.
Looking more closely at whether papers focused on programmes in rural versus all
types of regions, including urban ones, a similar but even more marked difference
emerges (see Figure 15). While programmes that were generally implemented in all
types of regions in the country nationally saw more increases than decreases in
migration, those implemented only in rural areas saw more decreases.
FIG 15. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO TYPE OF
REGION
Source: authors’ compilation
AMOUNT TRANSFERRED, PERIODICITY, EXPECTATIONS AND TERM
The amount transferred through a programme and its periodicity and regularity can
also play a role in the link it has with migration. One-time transfers may, for instance,
provide enough capital to cover migration, and without a clear signal that more
15
5
10 11
14
5
4
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
all regions rural only
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
57
transfers will come, there is little incentive for individuals and household members
not to emigrate, especially if pre-existing conditions or migration aspirations were
already present. On the other hand, periodical transfers, especially if conditioned on
being physically present for the transfer, can lower the probability of migration –
although it does not diminish the possibility of another member migrating. The
amount transferred may be a determinant of either an increase or a decrease in the
propensity to migrate, as it may not be enough to cover migration costs, or it may
provide the household with enough funds to lower the need to find income streams
from migration.
There is little explicit evidence that either the amount transferred or its periodicity are
clear determinants of the link between social protection and migration, although
several papers allude to the possibility. We first consider whether the amount is ‘low’
or ‘high’, as assessed by the authors of the studies. In terms of size of the amount
transferred, the results do not suggest any clear link with migration outcomes (Figure
16).
FIG 16. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO AMOUNT
TRANSFERRED
Source: authors’ compilation
There are several examples in the reviewed literature where transfers are argued to
be too low to keep individuals or households in their home country or locality. The
Comoran Social Safety Net Program, which offers USD 320 in cash for participation
in public works projects, for an average of 60 days, with wage, did not reduce
migration to the richer island of Mayotte. Similarly, Cortina (2014) finds that the
transfers of about USD 75 offered by the Mexican Procampo agricultural cash
4
12
2
11
4
11
4
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
low amount high amount
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
58
transfer programme was not enough to limit migration, although that finding is
contested by Chort and De La Rupelle for some specific subgroups (they find that
climate-induced migration decreased). In Mali also, the monthly Filets Sociaux cash
transfers of 30k FCFA (USD 18) were not enough to stop women and men from
migrating (Hidrobo et al. 2020). Finally, the transfers made in the Nicaraguan RPS,
which were equivalent of 18% of pre-programme household expenditures) were also
not enough to stop migration.
The link between the amount transferred and migration is argued to not be linear,
however. Discussing the effects of Procampo, Cortina (2014) notes that the
migration-social protection transfers link follows an inverted u-shape curve, which
suggests that transfers may increase migration, but only up to certain level of cash
transfer, after which individuals and households do not opt to migrate.
High transfers may not be enough, however. Most researchers agree that the
universal, unconditional South African OAP is particularly generous
8
, yet its transfer
to household is still linked with spurring internal migration within South Africa. This is
also true of the Chinese NRPS, which although less generous than the South African
OAP, is still linked with migration of adult children living in the benefiting household.
The NRPS pays 25% of per capita income to those aged more than 60 (Eggleston et
al., 2018).
Most of these transfers are regular (either monthly or bimonthly) and feature a mix of
generous and smaller amounts. There is therefore no strongly supporting evidence
about how the amount or regularity of such transfers play a role in the link with
migration (Figure 17).
8
In 2012, the OAP transfer amount was of 1200 Rand per month (around USD130), which was about four times larger than the
child support grant (Abel, 2013), and corresponding to about 175% of the median wage in South Africa (Woolard et al. 2011).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
59
FIG 17. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO FREQUENCY OF
TRANSFER
Source: authors’ compilation
Another area of potential research is on the expectations of the future of the
programme. Knowledge about whether the programme will end and when may
influence migration behaviour of households and individuals. In Nicaragua’s RPS for
instance, where migration increased, beneficiary households were only eligible to
receive the program for a fixed period of three years, after which it was not possible
to renew eligibility (Barham, et al. 2018). Another example of an unexpected end to a
programme is that of cash transfer programme in South Sudan, where migration
decreased (Muller et al., 2019).
Indeed, frequency and the expectation of a continued transfer or benefit may play a
central role in the decision to migrate. If a transfer is made often, there may be
administrative reasons to stay in the home country or region and avoid losing rights
to the transfer. More transfers that are frequent may also provide the financial
incentive to stay home. On the other side, increasing the frequency of transfers also
increases the administrative costs for the government or organisation implementing
the programme. The regularity of a transfer also increases its predictability, on which
benefiters can plan around - for instance, by ensuring that they are not away from
home when the transfers are administered.
The body of research suggests evidence that more regular transfers lead to higher,
rather than lower, migration outcomes, particularly when such transfers are monthly,
such as is the case with the Brazilian Bolsa Familia programme, The Philippine
Pantawid Pamilyang programme or either of the Chinese or South African pension
7 7
3
1
4
3
7
4
0
15
1
0
1
2
7
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
regular monthly transfer regular transfer, less often
than monthly
one-time transfer, at specific
time of year
as needed
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
60
programmes. When transfers are less frequent than monthly, research tends to find
more mixed outcomes, which is the case with most CCTs. When transfers are either
one-time affairs (such as employment programmes), or on a need basis (such as
with insurance), decreases or no impact are more common.
TYPE OF BENEFIT
An important element in the design of a social protection programme is the
identification of the benefit itself: cash, in-kind, or mixed with other types of benefits
such as training. Cash transfers, particularly if they are not conditional, do not
necessarily physically tie the benefactor to the place of origin, and therefore may be
more likely to lead to migration, if the prevailing conditions to do so exist. On the
other hand, in-kind transfers, trainings and services must be received in-person, and
therefore may reduce migration (at least while benefiting from the programme),
particularly if the person benefiting from the intervention was the most likely in the
household to migrate. This mechanism may be even stronger when in-kind transfers
are for productive assets or goods intended for local use, such as seeds and
fertiliser.
Broadly analysing the literature suggests that purely cash-based programmes are
much more likely to be associated with increases in migration (20 studies), whereas
those that are mixed benefits (including food, medicine and especially training), 46
studies, are more likely to lead to decreases in migration or mixed outcomes (Figure
18).
FIG 18. MIGRATION OUTCOMES ACCORDING TO TYPE OF
BENEFIT
Source: authors’ compilation
The programmes reviewed in this paper that offer a combination of cash and in-kind
transfers, often show a decrease, rather than an increase in migration. This is the
case, for example of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), where
benefits are provided in the form of both food and cash (Hoddinott, et al., 2020). In
12
8
3
12
2
16
3
10
0
5
10
15
20
primarily cash non-cash, or mixed benefits
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
61
the Mexican Oportunidades programme, benefits include a mix of education,
nutrition, health and direct cash transfers – and in fact, most migration outcomes are
related to the generation of children that benefited from these a generation prior (for
example, Aguilar, 2019).
Another type of benefit is insurance, such as the Mexican Fonden programme,
evaluated by Chort and De La Rupelle (2019). The programme offers insurance to
agricultural households in case of natural disasters, which must be officially
declared. On average, 30 natural disasters per year are declared under this
programme, and Chort and De La Rupelle (2019) demonstrate that it is effective in
reducing undocumented migration.
A final important type of benefit received in some social protection interventions is
training. While some programmes are explicitly training programmes, such as in
agriculture, many of the other programmes reviewed, including CCTs, have also
integrated training programmes. The Malian Filets Sociaux CCT, for instance,
includes two training activities per month on the importance of managing social
protection, education, maternal and child health, although they are voluntary. In the
Malian case, the programme is linked with lower internal migration for agricultural
women (Hidrobo et al, 2020). The lack of training was argued as the major reason
for the continuation of the internal migration of youth in Ghana’s LIPW. The cash-for-
work programme was tied to the development of assets in the localities of origin,
which were never used because youth were never properly trained on how to use
them, a major determinant of the migration outcome (Eshun and Dichaba, 2019).
5.3.2 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
On implementation, several elements can influence the migration outcome of the
programme, but these issues are not covered in most of the studies. What seems to
generally matters the most is whether implementers had adequate access to data to
identify the target group; whether they have the capacity to implement sometimes
complex initiatives; whether implementers are able to access all parts of the country
and whether the programme is anticipated or not – in other words, how exogenous
the positive income shock is to the recipient household, including its eventual
completion. In addition to these factors, the general macroeconomic context in which
such programmes are implemented may play a role, although this is generally out of
the control of the designers (see also section 5.2).
One aspect covered in the literature in more detail is the capacity to implement,
though the papers cannot draw any conclusions on the causal links between
implementation and migration outcomes. There are seven studies on implementation
issues, summarised in Figure 19, with no clear correlation with a particular migration
outcome.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
62
FIG 19. MIGRATION OUTCOMES AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Source: authors’ compilation
In the Kenyan Cash Transfers for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (CT-OVC)
programme, transfers were conditioned upon education and health requirements.
While households that did not comply with the conditions had their transfer reduced
from their payment, this was not fully implemented, and therefore understanding the
real role of such conditions in explaining an overall increase in migration is difficult to
ascertain (Soares, 2011). In Indonesia, arbitrary targeting is highlighted as a major
concern in the Bantuan Langsung Tunai programme (Tiwari and Winters, 2019).
General problems related to conception affecting the outcome were highlighted in
the Labour-Intensive Public Work programme in Ghana, as low water, land and
financial constraints (including barriers faced by women) tended to diminish the
desired impact of the initiative (Eshun and Dichaba, 2019), potentially contributing to
an increase or no impact of migration.
On capacity, the ability to follow-through and enforce certain requirements may
simply be too costly for the implementing country and organisation. For instance, in
the Nicaraguan Red de Proteccion Social programme, enforcing the requirements of
child health checks, and the presence of the primary caretaker, may be too
challenging to effectively and regularly control, which may explain why the authors
find mixed outcomes on migration (Winters et al, 2005). A similar point is made by
Lopez-Garcia and Orraca-Romano (2019) on the implementation of health insurance
in Mexico and how poor implementation means impact on migration is limited. Issues
related to the implementation of the NREGA programme in India include its short
duration, inherent corruption, the provision of the number of days of work did not
match the number promised by the programme, and delays in payments, which
ultimately lead to households not relying on the programme as a steady and
consistent social protection mechanism. Thus, beneficiaries continued to favour
migration (Deshingkar, 2010). In the case of the PSNP, the evidence shows that
when implemented correctly, it provided a safety net for vulnerable populations since
it enabled elderly people to stay, instead of migrating as a coping strategy during the
2
1 1
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
63
lean season (Deshingkar et al., 2015). This evidence suggests that the efficient
implementation of public work programmes was a key factor that led to a reduction in
migration.
Unexpected events may also deeply affect the outcome. The Youth Business Start-
up Grant Program in South Sudan was suddenly terminated in 2016 before its
intended termination date, and before most of the intended beneficiaries had
accessed the grant, due to violence in the country (Muller et al., 2019). Nevertheless,
these participants were less likely to migrate despite the breakout in conflict, perhaps
in anticipation of receipt of the transfer, showing the potential detrimental outcomes
of weak implementation (ibid).
5.4 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Two additional considerations are worthy of mention in the design of social
protection interventions and their link with migration: the timeline considered in the
research and the time it may take for a programme to have its full effects.
The timeline observed by the researcher, and the expectations of the programme in
the longer run play a significant role (see box 3, methodological and data choices).
As mentioned above in the context of programmes targeting children, while short-
term or immediate effects on migration outcomes may be less likely, it is plausible
that the main long-run increase in migration outcomes are found among those who
were the primary target of the policy – particularly if such programmes increased
their human capital and therefore employability, in the form of health, nutrition, and
schooling (Aguilar, 2019). For example, Himmelstine (2017) argues that the
Oportunidades programme led to a decrease in migration in the short-term, but an
increase of migration in the long-term. This is consistent with the findings of several
studies suggesting that the migration effects of the Oportunidades programme were
particularly felt in the longer term, that is, on adults who were children at the time
they benefited from the programme. It is also an area where the outcomes
suggested by researchers are less ambiguous. Of the nine studies that look at the
longer-term migration effects of children benefiting from Oportunidades, RPS and
PRAF-II, five of them suggest an increase – while none suggest no impact (Figure
20). Moreover, of the two studies that discuss mixed outcomes (decrease and
increase), one of them finds that migration shifted from domestic (decreased) to
international (increased) destinations (Molina et al., 2020), while the other finds an
increase in Nicaragua (and a decrease in Honduras) (Winters et al., 2005). Even
amongst the two papers suggesting a decrease, one of them (namely Behrman et
al., 2008) argues that despite the findings, in situations where returns to education
are higher elsewhere in Mexico, Oportunidades is also associated with higher
migration propensity. Therefore, the only study with an unambiguous decrease
conclusion in the long-term is Rodriguez-Oreggia and Freije (2012).
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
64
FIG 20. MIGRATION OUTCOMES IN THE LONG-TERM
Source: authors’ compilation
Under a similar light, the specific migration channel targeted by the social protection
programme may be inadvertent as well. One example is the aforementioned channel
whereby benefiting children have different migratory behaviour later on as adults.
Similarly, children who do not meet the eligibility requirements of certain
programmes, may live with younger children who do, and therefore benefit from the
programme at a household level – thus still influencing their migration outcomes
(Barham et al., 2018). Another example is the channel through which social
protection may indirectly influence migration outcomes through secondary channels,
by affecting human capital (skills, education) or health (nutrition). For example, a
programme increasing human capital may make a person more mobile, and thereby
increase the propensity of migration. In Ethiopia, marriage has been shown to be an
important channel, as the national productive safety net program (PSNP) has led to
delays in households marrying-out adolescent females, and therefore decreases in
marriage migration for females (Hoddinott et al., 2020).
6. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This review retrieved 76 studies that explicitly examine the impact of social
protection on migration decision-making, migration outcomes or aggregate migration
flows. A detailed summary of key findings is included in the executive summary at
the front of the paper.
6.1 POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The review on how social protection programmes can influence migration outcomes
suggests number of policy implications. This review suggests six implications for
policy.
5
2 2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
long-term study
increase decrease mixed outcomes no impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
65
BROADEN THE TERMS OF THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE
The main conclusion of this paper is that social protection programmes are the
concern of a broader set of decision makers and influencers than those managing
social protection and social programmes. In addition, migration challenges and
issues are a broader concern than one reduced to migration policy-related decision
makers. There is clear need to broaden the terms and dialogues on both social
protection and migration policy than what is currently the case. The interlinkages are
complex and reach a wide range of areas, including agriculture, finance, labour
markets, culture, policing, environment, territorial concerns, education and skills. As
social protection benefits may be fungible, the beneficiary may not necessarily be the
person whose migration outcome is affected. Similarly, social protection influence on
migration may vary over time, and by type of programme. Broadening the terms of
the discourse also implies ensuring that capacity of administrators and designers of
such programmes is strengthened to account for such interlinkages.
INVOLVE MORE ACTORS AT EARLIER STAGES OF DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
The complex ways that migration and social protection programmes interlink reflects
the need for more relevant actors involved, and earlier. That is, members of civil
society, the private sector, departments and ministries across the government
(horizontal integration) and from local to national (vertical integration) as well as
experts on the question should be in discussions. For instance, if the programme in
discussion is a public-private pension programme, related private sector and local
administrative actors should be involved in regions where it is being implemented,
along with related governmental actors. This reflects the idea of a whole-of-
government and whole-of-society approach to migration governance called for in the
Global Compact on Migration (GCM).
IDENITFY WHETHER MIGRATION OBJECTIVES ARE IMPORTANT, OR NOT, TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMMES
The primary reason for social protection programmes is the protection of the social
and economic livelihoods of people. However, policymakers may explicitly or
implicitly build-in migration outcomes within the objectives of the programme (either
more or less – e.g. retaining skilled workers). Policymakers must decide whether
migration outcomes are important to the objectives of the programmes or not, and
act accordingly – given the inadvertent effects such programmes may have on
migration. The influence of social protection on migration varies widely, and if
migration objectives are included in social protection programming, these must be
accounted for. Programmes must be designed carefully to ensure that unintended
and possibly even incoherent outcomes are avoided.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
66
ACCOUNT FOR GROUP SPECIFICITIES WHEN DESIGNING SOCIAL
PROTECTION
The effects and the variety of outcomes vary by specific, often vulnerable, groups,
such as youth, women, people with disabilities, elderly people, rural and lower
educated\illiterate people. Each group represents specific needs as the link they may
have with both social protection and migration is not uniform across subgroups.
ENSURE THAT SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMMES EQUIP INDIVIDUALS
AND HOUSEHOLDS WITH SKILLS OR REDUCE RISK
Purely cash-based programmes tend to increase migration, compared to non-
monetary transfers, services or insurance. Communicating and ensuring that
targeted individuals and households have the capacity and are enabled to use the
benefits is also important, as it transcends the challenges of their interlinkage with
migration. For instance, this review pointed out that migration may be limited due to
the inflexibility of social protection benefits and the difficulties in transferring rights to
certain programmes in other parts of the country.
MONITOR AND EVALUATE SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMMES FOR THEIR
IMPACT ON MIGRATION
Given that there are many inadvertent effects, some of which we may not be able to
always account for, as well as the fact that migration may or may not be an explicit
objective of the programme, monitoring and evaluation regarding migration
outcomes should be a regular component of social protection programmes. This is
all the more important given that the interlinkages may vary over time, household
members, type of programme and capacity to implement such programmes. With a
clear monitoring and evaluation strategy, actors that may not have been involved in
the design earlier on can be brought in, and programmes can be adjusted to tie in
closer to its objectives.
6.2 SUGGESTED AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH
This review identified a number of critical gaps in the literature. First, consideration of
the context where social protection programmes are implemented and how it
mediates social protection impacts needs further research. Very few studies
provided an analysis of the locations of fieldwork areas or other contextual factors
that could have led to migration when participants and their households benefit from
social protection. Most studies mentioned the persistence of poverty or the role of
environmental shocks and deficient agricultural conditions, but very few explore the
role of major economic shocks, enforcement of migration laws, social structures, and
of the cultural or agroeconomic processes that could influence migration decisions of
individuals and households benefitting from social protection. Furthermore, context
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
67
changes over time and the factors that drive contextual changes and their outcomes
on social protection is overlooked.
Second, the types of migration caused by the social protection programme such as
distress, labour, educational, marriage, amongst others, and what is the particular
role of social protection on these decisions is unclear. Very few studies offer details
on the kinds of migration that social protection produces beyond migration being
internal, international, seasonal, return, etc. This is important because the evidence
suggests that social protection has the potential to change migration in desired ways
or even to reduce it. For example, in Malawi the migration of adolescent girls and
boys may have shifted from forced migration for marriage and labour to migration for
education (Deshingkar et al., 2015).
Third, the length of exposure either to the programme or to any tradition of migration
(e.g. the social networks that may shape some destination preferences over others)
is an additional gap. For example, the majority of studies do not differentiate whether
households have been beneficiaries for a short, medium or long period of time.
Indeed, length of exposure to the programme or to different migration traditions can
interact with other factors such as covariate (e.g. climate change effects coupled with
the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic) and idiosyncratic (e.g. illness of a family
members) shocks.
Fourth, the migration decision-making process of social protection beneficiaries or
that of other members of their household needs further research. Most studies do not
consider how the decision-making process works and overlook important factors that
influence the decision-making process of those who benefit from social protection
(directly and indirectly) and who migrate. This includes the direct benefits of the
programme that led them or not to migrate; the aspirations that they may have shape
as beneficiaries of the social protection programme; the presence of social networks
in the migration process; the kinds of migration that some individuals or locations
have undertaken even before the implementation of a social protection programme;
or other tangible or intangible factors (gender norms, intersectional inequalities,
availability of job opportunities) that have reduced the need of beneficiaries to
migrate or to prevent them from doing so. The specific role of social protection or
other forms of government support in the migration decision-making process also
deserves more attention, as some household members may decide to stay while
others migrate, or households may modify their livelihood strategies. Overall, other
factors that might influence the decision to stay or to migrate for beneficiaries and
other household members need further analysis.
All these gaps support the need for more contextualised research that underpins the
precise role that social protection may have played in the decision-making process of
individuals including in contexts where migration has been a previous livelihood
strategy and where the migration of some members of a household may be preferred
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
69
REFERENCES
Adhikari, S. and Gentilini, U., 2018. Should I stay or should I go: do cash transfers
affect migration?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8525).
Aguilar, A., Barnard, C., & De Giorgi, G. (2019). Long-Term Effects of PROSPERA
on Welfare. Policy research Working Paper 9002. World Bank Group. Social
Protection and Jobs Global Practice
Angelucci, M. (2004). Aid and migration: An analysis of the impact of progresa on the
timing and size of labour migration, IZA Discussion Paper No. 1187. Bonn: IZA.
Angelucci, M. (2013). Migration and Financial Constraints: Evidence from Mexico,
IZA Discussion Paper No. 7726. Bonn: IZA.
Ardington, C., Case, A., & Hosegood, V. (2009). Labor supply responses to large
social transfers: Longitudinal evidence from South Africa. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 1, 22–48.
Aslany, Maryam; Jørgen Carling; Mathilde Bålsrud Mjelva; & Tone Sommerfelt
(2021) Systematic review of determinants of migration aspirations, QuantMig
deliverable, 2. Southampton: University of Southampton.
Azuara, O. (2009). Does poverty alleviation increase migration? Evidence from
Mexico (MPRA Paper No. 17599). Munich: Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Barham, T., Macours, K., & Maluccio, J. (2018). Are Conditional Cash Transfers
Fulfilling Their Promise? Schooling, Learning, and Earnings After 10 Years. CEPR
Discussion Papers.
Behrman, J., Parker, S., & Todd, P. (2008). Medium-term impacts of the
oportunidades conditional cash transfer program on rural youth in Mexico. In S.
Klasen & F. Nowak-Lehmann (Eds.), Poverty, inequality, and policy in Latin America
(pp. 219–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Carling, J. (2014). The role of aspirations in migration. Determinants of International
Migration, International Migration Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, 2325.
Carling, J., and Schewel, K. (2018). Revisiting aspiration and ability in international
migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 945-963.
Centre for Science and Environment. (2008). An assessment of the performance of
the national rural employment guarantee programme in terms of its potential for
creation of natural wealth in India’s villages. New Delhi: Ministry of Rural
Development Government of India.
Chau, N. H., Kanbur, R., & Qin, Y. (2012). Do public work schemes deter or
encourage outmigration? Empirical evidence from China (CEPR Discussion Paper
No. DP8778). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Chen, X. (2016). Old-Age Pension and Extended Families: How Is Adult Children’S
Internal Migration Affected? Contemporary Economic Policy, 34(4), 646–659.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
70
Chort, I., & Rupelle, M. De. (2019). Managing the Impact of Climate on Migration:
Evidence from Mexico. Center for the Analysis of Trade and economic Transitions,
WP No.8.
Clemens, M. 2022. “Do Cash Transfers Deter Migration?” CGD Policy Paper 270.
Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
https://www.cgdev.org/publication/do-cash-transfers-deter-migration
Clemens, Michael A. "The emigration life cycle: How development shapes emigration
from poor countries." (2020). IZA Discussion Paper No. 13614. Bonn: IZA.
Cortina, J. (2014). Subsidizing migration? Mexican agricultural policies and migration
to the United States. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 42, Issue 1, 101–121.
Cuadros-Meñaca, A., 2020. Remittances, health insurance, and pension
contributions: Evidence from Colombia. World Development, 127, p.104766.
Cuecuecha, A and Scott, J (2009). The effect of agricultural subsidies on migration
and agricultural employment. Numero 474. Centro de Investigacion y Docencia
Economicas
Curiel, E (2000). Emigrar por desesperación: Progresa y la migración interna e
internacional. In Latapi y de la Rocha (eds). Evaluación de Resultados del Programa
de Educación, Salud y Alimentación. Impacto a nivel comunitario. Programa de
Educación, Salud y Alimentación.
Da Mota Silveira Neto, R. (2008). Do public income transfer to the poorest affect
internal inter-regional migration? Evidence for the case of Brazilian Bolsa Familia
Program (Anais do XXXVI Encontro-Nacional de EconomiaNo. 200807111106330).
Inga, Brazil: Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pósgraduação em Economia.
de Haas, H. (2010) ‘Migration and development: A theoretical perspective’,
International Migration Review 44: 227-264.
de Haas, H (2021) A theory of migration: the aspirations-capabilities framework.
Comparative Migration Studies 9, 8.
de la Peña, E (2017). Indigenous Urban Families and the Oportunidades Program in
Mexico. In Cortina R (ed). Indigenous Education Policy, Equity, and Intercultural
Understanding in Latin America. New York: Pelgrave Macmillan.
de la Rocha González, M. (2009). Life after oportunidades: Rural program impact
after 10 years of implementation (External evaluation of oportunidades 2008. 1997–
2007: 10 Years of intervention in rural areas. Volume I). Mexico City: Secretaría de
Desarrollo Social.
de Oliveira, G. L., & Chagas, A. L. S. (2018). Effects of a cash transfer programme
on origin–destination migration flows. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 12(1),
83–104.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
71
Deshingkar, P., Godfrey-Wood, R., & Bene, C. (2015). Adaptive social protection
and migration. The case of cash transfers in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi.
Falmer, UK: Migrating out of Poverty Research Programme Consortium.
Deshingkar, P., Akter, S., Sharma, P., & Farrington J. (2010). The impacts of social
protection on labour markets and migration with particular reference to the NREGA.
London: Overseas Development Institute.
Dodd, W., Wyngaarden, S., Humphries, S., Patel, K., Majowicz, S., Little, M., &
Dewey, C. (2018). The relationship between MGNREGA and internal labour
migration in Tamil Nadu, India. European Journal of Development Research, 30(2),
178–194.
Duany, J., 2010. To send or not to send: Migrant remittances in Puerto Rico, the
Dominican Republic, and Mexico. The ANNALS of the american academy of political
and social science, 630(1), pp.205-223.
Eggleston, K., Sun, A., & Zhan, Z. (2018). The impact of rural pensions in China on
labor migration. World Bank Economic Review, 32(1), 64–84.
Eshun, S. N., & Dichaba, M. M. (2019). Labour Intensive Public Work (LIPW)
programme and youth migration in Ghana: A study of Daffiama Bussie Issah District.
African Renaissance, 16(3), 221–247.
Gagnon, J. and Hagen-Zanker, J. (2019). Social protection and risk: the ultimate root
cause of migration? https://oecd-development-matters.org/2019/07/03/social-
protection-and-risk-the-ultimate-root-cause-of-migration/
Gazeaud, J., Mvukiyehe, E., & Sterck, O. (2019). Cash Transfers and Migration :
Theory and Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial*. 44(0). Centre for the
Study of African Economies, Working Paper WPS/2019—16.
Gentilini,Ugo; Almenfi,Mohamed Bubaker Alsafi; Iyengar,TMM; Okamura,Yuko;
Downes,John Austin; Dale,Pamela; Weber,Michael; Newhouse,David Locke;
Rodriguez Alas,Claudia P; Kamran,Mareeha; Mujica Canas,Ingrid Veronica;
Fontenez,Maria Belen; Asieduah,Sandra; Mahboobani Martinez,Vikesh Ramesh;
Reyes Hartley,Gonzalo Javier; Demarco,Gustavo C.; Abels,Miglena; Zafar,Usama;
Urteaga,Emilio Raul; Valleriani,Giorgia; Muhindo,Jimmy Vulembera; Aziz,Sheraz.
(2022). Social Protection and Jobs Responses to COVID-19 : A Real-Time Review
of Country Measures. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Gil-García, Ó. F. (2016). Gender equality, community divisions, and autonomy: The
Prospera conditional cash transfer program in Chiapas, Mexico. Current Sociology,
64(3), 447–469.
Gil-García, Ó. F. (2019). The Prospera conditional cash transfer program and its
impact on education, labor, and migration in an indigenous Mayan community in
Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 1–21.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
72
González-König, G., & Wodon, Q. (2005). Do cash transfers to farmers reduce
migration? Procampo in Mexico (Department of Economics and Finance Working
Papers No. EC200501). Guanajuato, Mexico: Universidad de Guanajuato.
Greenwood, M. J. G., & McDowell, J. M. (2011). USA immigration policy, source-
country social programs, and the skill composition of legal USA immigration. Journal
of Population Economics, 24, 521–539.
Greenwood, M. J., McDowell, J. M., Waldman, D. M., & Zahniser, S. S. (1999). The
influence of social programs in source countries on various classes of U.S.
immigration. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 64–74.
Hagen‐Zanker, J. (2008). Why do people migrate? A review of the theoretical
literature. A Review of the Theoretical Literature (January 2008). Maastrcht Graduate
School of Governance Working Paper No.
Hagen-Zanker, J. and Mallett, R. (2022). Inside the ‘efficacy gap’: migration policy
and the dynamics of encounter. International Migration, early online view.
Hagen-Zanker, J. and Mallett, R. (2020). Understanding migrant decision-making:
implications for policy. MIDEQ Working Paper.
Hagen-Zanker, J. and Hennessey, G. (2021). What Do We Know about the
Subjective and Intangible Factors That Shape Migration Decision-Making?, PRIO
Paper. Oslo: PRIO.
Hagen-Zanker, J. and Himmelstine, C.L., 2016. How effective are cash transfers in
reducing poverty, compared to remittances?. Social Policy and Society, 15(1), p.29.
Hagen-Zanker, J. and Himmelstine, C.L., (2013). What do we know about the impact
of social protection programmes on the decision to migrate?. Migration and
Development, 2(1), pp.117-131.
Hagen-Zanker, J., Siegel, M., and De Neubourg, C. (2009). Strings attached. The
impediments to migration in Albania and Moldova. Southeast European and Black
Sea Studies, 9:461–481.
Hidrobo, M., Mueller, V., & Roy, S. (2020). Cash Transfers and the Geographic
Mobility of the Rural Poor in Mali. 1–58.
Himmelstine, C. (2017). The linkages between social protection and migration : a
case study of Oportunidades and migration in Oaxaca , Mexico. Doctoral thesis,
School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.
Hoddinott, J., & Mekasha, T. J. (2020). Social Protection, Household Size, and Its
Determinants: Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Studies, 56(10),
1818–1837.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
73
Howell, A. (219). Targeted Cash Transfers, Credit Constraints, and Ethnic Migration
in the People’s Republic of China. ADB Economics Working Paper Series. No. 575.
Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Hughes, C. (2019). Reexamining the Influence of Conditional Cash Transfers on
Migration From a Gendered Lens. Demography, 56(5), 1573–1605.
ILO. 2017. World Social Protection Report 2017-2019. Geneva: ILO.
https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_604882/lang--en/index.htm
Imbert, C., & Papp, J. (2020). Short-term Migration, Rural Public Works, and Urban
Labor Markets: Evidence from India. Journal of the European Economic Association,
18(2), 927–963.
Inder, B., & Maitra, P. (2004). Social pensions, migration and household
composition: Evidence from South Africa. Department of Economics discussion
papers (Monash University. Dept. of Economics); no. 04/16.
Ishikawa, A. (2014). The Effect of Mexico’s Conditional Cash Transfer Program on
Migration Decisions, 1–44.
Jacob, N. (2008). The impact of NREGA on rural–urban migration: Field survey of
Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu (CCS Working Paper No. 202). New Delhi: Centre for
Civil Society.
Jones, K. and Sha,H. (2020). Mediated migration: A literature review of migration
intermediaries, MIDEQ Working Paper.
La, H.A., and Xu, Y. (2017) Remittances, social security, and the crowding-out effect:
Evidence from Vietnam, Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 42-
59.
Latapi, A (2000). Progresa y el bienestar de las familias. Los hallazgos. En Escobar,
A y de la Rocha (eds). Logros y retos: Una evaluación cualitativa de Progresa en
México. Evaluación de Resultados del Programa de Educación, Salud y
Alimentación. Impacto a nivel comunitario. Programa de Educación, Salud y
Alimentación.
Li, Q., Wang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2018). The Impact of China’s New Rural Pension
Program on Elderly Labor, Grandchild Care, and Old-Age Support. Feminist
Economics, 24(2), 265–287.
López García, A. I., & Orraca-Romano, P. P. (2019). International migration and
universal healthcare access: evidence from Mexico’s ‘Seguro Popular.’ Oxford
Development Studies, 47(2), 171–187.
Mahé, C. (2020). Publicly provided healthcare and migration. Economics and Human
Biology, 39, 1-19
Mesnard, A. (2009). Migration, Violence and Welfare Programmes in Rural
Colombia. IFS Working Paper. Institute for Fiscal Studies. CEPR, Toulouse School
of Economics
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
74
Molina Millán, T., Macours, K., Maluccio, J. A., & Tejerina, L. (2020). Experimental
long-term effects of early-childhood and school-age exposure to a conditional cash
transfer program. Journal of Development Economics, 143, 102385, 1-20.
Molina Millán, T., Barham, T., Macours, K., Maluccio, J, & Stampini, M. (2019). Long-
Term Impacts of Conditional Cash Transfers: Review of the Evidence. The World
Bank Research Observer, 34(1), 119-159.
Mueller, V., Gray, C., Handa, S., & Seidenfeld, D. (2020). Do social protection
programs foster short-term and long-term migration adaptation strategies?
Environment and Development Economics, 25(2), 135–158.
Müller, A., Pape, U. J., & Ralston, L. R. (2019). Broken Promises: Evaluating an
Incomplete Cash Transfer Program. Policy Research Working Paper, 9016,
Washington: World Bank Group.
Namara, S., Essilfie, F., & Dadzie, C. (2018). Impact of Labour Intensive Public
Works on Youth Employment and Seasonal Migration: Evidence from Ghana.
National Federation of Indian Women. (2008). A study on socio-economic
empowerment of women under NREGA. New Delhi: National Federation of Indian
Women, Ministry of Rural Development.
Nikolov, P. and Bonci, M., 2020. Do public program benefits crowd out private
transfers in developing countries? A critical review of recent evidence. World
Development, 134, p.104967.
OECD (2017a). Interrelations between Public Policies, Migration and Development.
Paris: OECD Publishing. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2017b). Interrelations between Public Policies, Migration and Development
in the Philippines. OECD Development Pathways. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2017c). Interrelations between Public Policies, Migration and Development in
Cambodia. OECD Development Pathways. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2017d). Interactions entre politiques publiques, migrations et développement
en Haïti. Les voies de développement. Paris: Éditions OCDE.
OECD (2017e). Interrelations between Public Policies, Migration and Development in
the Dominican Republic. OECD Development Pathways. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oryema, J. B. (2017). The Impact of Social Protection on Resettlement of Displaced
Persons: Evidence from Post-Conflict Northern Uganda. Journal of International
Development, 29(6), 700–713.
Palacios, S., & Rubio, K. (2012). La exclusión de la mujer migrante del programa
Oportunidades: el ejemplo de la zona citrícola de Tamaulipas. Trayectorias, 14(35),
44–65.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
75
Papp, J. (2012). Essays on India’s employment guarantee (Doctoral dissertation).
Princeton University,Princeton.
Parida, J. K. (2016). MGNREGS, distress migration and livelihood conditions: a
study in Odisha. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 18(1–2), 17–39.
Parker, S., & Vogl, T. (2018). Do conditional cash transfers improve economic
outcomes in the next generation? Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Chemical
Information and Modeling, 110(9), 1689–1699.
Posel, D., Fairburn, J., & Lund, F. (2006). Labour migration and households: A
reconsideration of the effects of the social pension on labour supply in South Africa.
Economic Modelling, 23, 836–853.
Ravi, S., Kapoor, M., & Ahluwalia, R. (2012). The Impact of NREGS on Urbanization
in India. SSRN Electronic Journal. Preliminary draft.
Rodriguez-Oreggia, E,. & Freije, S. (2012). Long term impact of a Cash-Transfers
Program on Labor Outcomes of the Rural Youth (Centre for International
Development Working Paper No. 230). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Rosas, N., & Sabarwal, S. (2016). Can you work it ? evidence on the productive
potential of public works from a youth employment program in Sierra Leone. Policy
Research Working Paper 7580, World Bank Group.
Rubalcava, L., & Teruel, G. 2006. Conditional public transfers and living
arrangements in rural Mexico (California Center for Population Research CCPR No.
06–06). Oakland: University of California.
Sabates-Wheeler, R., and Waite, M. (2003). Migration and social protection: A
concept paper (Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and
Poverty No. T2). Falmer, UK: University of Sussex.
Sana, M., & Hu, C. Y. (2007). Is International Migration a Substitute for Social
Security? Well-Being and Social Policy, 2(2), 27–48.
Sana, M., & Massey, D. S. (2000). Seeking social security: An alternative motivation
for Mexico–US migration. International Migration, 38, 3–24.
Sibson, V. L. (2019). A mixed methods study on the influence of a seasonal cash
transfer and male labour migration on child nutrition in Tahoua, Niger. Doctoral
thesis, Institute for Global Health, University College London.
Sienaert, A. (2007). Migration, remittances and public transfers: Evidence from
South Africa (Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series No. 351). Oxford:
University of Oxford.
Sienaert, A. (2008). The labour supply effects of the South African state old age
pension: Theory, evidence and implication (SALDRU Working Paper Series No. 20).
Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
76
Soares Assuncao, F. (2011). Do cash transfers alter household composition?
Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa (Master thesis). Faculty of the School of
International Service of American University, Washington, DC.
Stark, O. (1991) The Migration of Labour. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Stecklov, G., Winters, P., Stampini, M., & Davis, B. (2005). Do conditional cash
transfers influence migration? A study using experimental data from the Mexican
PROGRESA program. Demography, 42, 769–790.
Sudarshan, R. M., Bhattacharya, R., & Fernandez, G. (2010). Women’s participation
in the NREGA: Some observations from fieldwork in Himachal Pradesh, Kerala and
Rajasthan. IDS Bulletin, 41(4), 77–83.
Tirado-Alcaraz, J. A. (2014). Investments in Human Capital: Long-term Effects of
Progresa- Oportunidades on Poverty and Migration in Rural Mexico. Journal of
Social Research & Policy, 5(5), 23-37.
Tiwari, S., & Winters, P. C. (2019). Liquidity Constraints and Migration : Evidence
from Indonesia. International Migration Review, 53(1), 254–282.
Walsham, M. J. (2020). Internal migration and social pensions in Uganda : The
Senior Citizens Grant and its effects on intrahousehold dynamics and wellbeing in
multi - local households. Doctoral thesis, School of Environment, Education and
Development (SEED). University of Manchester
Woolard, Ingrid, K. Harttgen & S. Klasen (2011), The history and impact of social
security in South Africa: experiences and lessons, Canadian Journal of Development
Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 32:4, 357-380, DOI:
10.1080/02255189.2011.647654
Winters, P., Steklov, G., & Todd, J. (2005). The impact of conditional cash transfers
on household composition, fertility and migration in Central America. Washington,
DC: Department of Economics, American University.
World Bank. 2018. “The State of Social Safety Nets 2018.” Washington, DC: World
Bank http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/427871521040513398/pdf/124300-
PUB-PUBLIC.pdf.
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
77
ANNEX 1 SEARCH PROTOCOL
Inclusion criteria
Screening:
Inclusion criteria help in deciding whether a study that has been found is relevant. The
following inclusion criteria will be applied during the screening process (all criteria need
to be satisfied for the study to be included). They will be applied to titles, then abstracts,
then full text. All studies that are included on the basis of the first stage screening
process, will be included in study.
1. Date: No restriction
2. Language: The review is restricted to English, Spanish and French studies.
3. Population: Broadly migrants and their households living in migration origin
countries/ migrant origin areas, in particular those covered by social protection
schemes
4. Geographical locations: Global including migrants from low-income countries
(LICs) or middle-income countries (MICs)
5. Interventions: Publicly mandated social protection
6. Study design: The study should be a solid empirical study (i.e. based on data
and or fieldwork). It can be qualitative or quantitative. [Not theoretical; no literature
review; nit descriptive]
7. Outcome: This can either be reduced/increased migration outflows or different
types of migration flows (internal, intra-regional, return, etc). Type of migration can
include but not limited to:
• Distress - due to sudden shock (e.g. health)
• Poverty - constant stresses
• Employment – better employment possibilities
• Education – of self or children
• Political
• Environmental
List of searches:
Google (first five pages)
Google Scholar (first five pages)
Databases: EBSCO, Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS
4. Snowball technique
Experts will be contacted and asked for relevant studies on the research question. We
will also look at their websites for relevant publications. Studies shared by experts will
be assessed against screening criteria. We will also check the reference lists of the
studies obtained for any further studies that fit the inclusion criteria.
5. Hand-searching
The following websites/ search engines should be consulted, if possible using the
same search strings as for the academic databases. Any studies found on these
websites will be assessed against the same screening criteria
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
78
Websites / search engines:
World Bank
The Migration Observatory (University of Oxford)
IOM
IOM Global Migration Data Analysis Centre
IZA https://www.iza.org/content/publications
Econpapers
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/search.pf?ft=%22future+of+work%22
Ideas https://ideas.repec.org/cgi-
bin/htsearch?form=extended&wm=wrd&dt=range&ul=&q=%22future+of+work
%22&cmd=Search%21&wf=4BFF&s=R&db=&de=
Migration Policy Centre (EUI)
COMPAS (Oxford)
CReAM
Migration Policy Institute
Cross Migration Database (EU)
CGD
Hal https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
Journals:
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Migration and Development
Comparative Migration Studies
International Migration Review
International Migration
Population, Space and Place
Development and Change
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
79
ANNEX 2 STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL
PROTECTION ON THE PROPENSITY TO MIGRATE
AND AGGREGATE MIGRATION FLOWS
Author
Country
Name of
social
protection
programme
Type of
programme
Impact on propensity to
migrate/aggregate
migration flows
Barham et
al. (2018)
Nicaragua
Red de
Protección
Social (RPS)
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
Molina et al.
(2020)
Honduras
Programa de
Asignación
Familiar
(PRAF-II)
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - decrease
domestic migration
(indigenous youths),
increase international
migration (non-indigenous)
Winters et al.
(2005)
Honduras;
Nicaragua
Programa de
Asignación
Familiar
(PRAF-II);
Red de
Proteccion
Social (RPS)
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - no impact
(Honduras), increase
(Nicaragua)
Chort and de
la Rupelle
(2019)
Mexico
Procampo
Conditional
Cash Transfer
for Farmers
Decrease
Cortina
(2014)
Mexico
Procampo
Conditional
Cash Transfer
for Farmers
Increase (but decrease over
time)
Cuecuecha
and Scott
(2009)
Mexico
Procampo
Conditional
Cash Transfer
for Farmers
Decrease
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
80
Gonzalez-
Konig and
Wodon
(2005)
Mexico
Procampo
Conditional
Cash Transfer
for farmers
Decrease
Aguilar et al.
(2019)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - decrease
in the short-term (individuals
aged 11-16 in 1997),
increase in the long-term
Angelucci
(2004)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes – increase
(international), no impact –
(internal)
Angelucci
(2013)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes – increase
(international), no impact –
(internal)
Azuara
(2009)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
Behrman et
al. (2008)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Decrease
Curiel (2000)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes – decrease
(students), mixed outcomes
(heads of household)
De la Peña
(2017)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
No impact
De la Rocha
(2009)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
81
Gil-Garcia
(2016)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes -
international migration
continues (parents),
decrease (direct former
beneficiaries)
Gil-Garcia
(2019)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - no impact
(migration continues),
decrease (short-term)
Himmelstine
(2017)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes- decrease
(in the short-term), increase
in the long-term
Hughes
(2019)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Decrease (females)
Ishikawa
(2014)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - decrease
(children and mothers),
increase (other members of
the household)
Latapi
(2000)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes – mixed
outcomes (indirect
beneficiaries), increase
(return migration)
Palacios and
Rubio (2012)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
No impact
Parker and
Volg (2018)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Increase (female)
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
82
Rodriguez-
Oreggia and
Freije, S.
(2012)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Decrease
Rubalcava
and Teruel
(2006)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
Stecklov et
al. (2005)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - decrease
(international), no impact
(internal)
Tirado-
Alcazar
(2014)
Mexico
Progresa /
Oportunidades
/ Propsera
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - no impact
(international), increase
(domestic)
Mesnard
(2009)
Colombia
Familias en
Acción
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - decrease
(when violence is not high),
increase (when violence is
high)
Da Mota
Silveira Neto
(2008)
Brazil
Bolsa Familia
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Decrease
De Oliveira
and Chagas
(2018)
Brazil
Bolsa Familia
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Decrease
Fontes et al.
(2019)
Brazil
Bolsa Familia
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes – increase
(return) and no impact
(migrants who left before BF
implementation)
OECD
(2017b)
The
Philippines
Pantawid ng
Pamilyang
Pilipino
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
83
Program or
4Ps
OECD
(2017d)
Haiti
Ti Manman
Cheri (TMC)
Conditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
OECD (e)
Dominican
Republic
Solidaridad
Conditional
Cash Transfer
No impact
Hidrobo et al
(2020)
Mali
Filets Sociaux
(Jigisémèjiri)
Unconditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes – increase
(male, salaried women and
women living in remote
communities), decrease
(women working in
agriculture)
Howell
(2019)
China
Minimum
Living
Standard
Assistance
(MLSA)
programme -
Dibao
Unconditional
Cash Transfer
Decrease
Mueller et al.
(2020)
Zambia
Child Grant
Program
(CGP)
Unconditional
Cash Transfer
Mixed outcomes - increase
except for wealthier
households whose migration
decreased during extreme
heat
Muller et al.
(2019)
South Sudan
Youth
Business
Start-Up Grant
Program
Unconditional
Cash Transfer
Decrease (females)
Sibson
(2019)
Niger
REFANI-N
trial
Unconditional
Cash Transfer
No impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
84
Soares
(2011)
Kenya
Cash Transfer
for Orphans
and
Vulnerable
Children
(Kenya)
Unconditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
Tiwari and
Winters
(2019)
Indonesia
Bantuan
Langsung
Tunai
Unconditional
Cash Transfer
Increase
Chen (2016)
China
New Rural
Pension
Scheme
(NRPS)
Non-
contributory
(aged 60 or
over)
Increase
Eggleston et
al (2018)
China
New Rural
Pension
Scheme
(NRPS)
Non-
contributory
pension (aged
60 or over)
Increase
Li et al.
(2018)
China
New Rural
Pension
Scheme
(NRPS)
Non-
contributory
pension (aged
60 or over)
Decrease
Ardington et
al (2009)
South Africa
Old-age grant
Non-
contributory
pension
Increase
Inder and
Maitra
(2004)
South Africa
Old-age grant
Non-
contributory
pension
Increase
Posel et al.
(2006)
South Africa
Old-age grant
Non-
contributory
pension
Increase
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
85
Sienaert
(2007)
South Africa
Old-age grant
Non-
contributory
pension
Increase
Sienaert
(2008)
South Africa
Old-age grant
Non-
contributory
pension
Increase
Walsham
(2020)
Uganda
Senior
Citizens Grant
(SCG)
Non-
contributory
pension
No impact
Hagen-
Zanker et al
(2009)
Albania
Social
insurance
Social
assistance; Old
Age allowance;
Disability pay;
Unemployment
benefit;
Maternity
allowance
Decrease
Greenwood
et al. (1999)
60 countries
of origin
Social
insurance
Old-age
pensions;
sickness and
maternity
benefits;
unemployment
insurance;
family
allowances
Decrease
Greenwood
and
McDowell
(2011)
86 countries
of origin
Social
insurance
Old-age
pensions;
sickness and
maternity
benefits;
unemployment
insurance;
Decrease
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
86
family
allowances
Lopez-
Garcia and
Orraca-
Romano
(2019)
Mexico
Seguro
Popular
Free medical
care
Mixed outcomes - no effect
(international), increase
(return)
Mahe (2020)
Mexico
Seguro
Popular
Free medical
care
Mixed outcomes - Increase
(internal), no change
(international)
OECD
(2017a)
Georgia,
Costa Rica,
Armenia,
Dominican
Republic,
Morocco,
Cote d'Ivoire
Social
insurance
Pension plan;
health benefits;
other
subsidies; work
benefits
Mixed outcomes –
international and return
Sana and Hu
(2007)
Mexico
Social
insurance
Unemployment
insurance;
disability pay;
free medical
care; day-care
for children; old
age pension
Decrease
Sana and
Massey
(2000)
Mexico
Social
insurance
Unemployment
insurance;
disability pay;
free medical
care; day-care
for children; old
age pension
Decrease
Chau, et al.
(2012)
China
Yigong-
daizhen
programme
Public works
scheme
Increase
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
87
Gazeaud et
al (2019)
Comoros
Comoros
Social Safety
Net Program
(SSNP)
Cash-for-work
program
Increase
Hoddinott et
al (2020)
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s
Productive
Safety Net
Program
(PSNP)
Public works
scheme
Decrease
Eshun and
Dichaba
(2019)
Ghana
Labor
Intensive
Public Work
(LIPW)
Public works
scheme
No impact
Namara et al
(2018)
Ghana
Labour
Intensive
Public Works
(LIPW)
Public works
scheme
Mixed outcomes - No impact
(quantitative, decrease
(qualitative)
Centre for
Science and
Environment.
(2008)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
Mixed outcomes - No
change (Nuapada district),
decrease (Sidhi district)
Deshingkar
et al (2010)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
No impact (but some
decrease of distress
migration)
Imbert and
Papp (2020)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
Decrease
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
88
Jacob (2008)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
No impact
National
Federation
of Indian
Women
(2008)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
No impact
Papp (2012)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
Decrease
Parida
(2016)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
Decrease
Ravi et al.
(2012)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
Decrease
Dodd et al.
(2018)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Public works
scheme
No impact
Sudarshan
et al. (2010)
India
India’s
National Rural
Employment
Public works
scheme
No impact
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
89
Guarantee Act
(NREGA)
Rosas and
Sabarwal
(2016)
Sierra Leone
Youth
Employment
Support
Project
Cash-for-work
program
Increase
OECD
(2017c)
Cambodia
Not specified
Food and
cash-for-work
Increase
Deshingkar
et al (2015)
Ethiopia,
Kenya,
Tanzania
and Malawi
PSNP
(Ethiopia);
HSNP
(Kenya);
TASAF-II
(Tanzania);
Mchinji cash
transfer
programme
(Malawi)
Employment
guarantee
scheme
(PSNP);
Unconditional
Cash transfer
(PSNP and
Mchinji) and
Conditional
Cash Transfer
(TASAF II)
No impact
Oryema
(2017)
Uganda
Unconditional
cash transfers,
inputs and
livestock
transfers
Cash transfers
to the elderly
and child
headed
families; live
animals;
agricultural
inputs; basic
household
items
Decrease
MIDEQ: MIGRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITY JANUARY 2023
www.mideq.org | MIDEQ South-South Migration Hub
90
Contact author
Jessica Hagen-Zanker, ODI
j.hagen-zanker@odi.org.uk
Suggested citation
Himmelstine, C., Gagnon, J., Hagen-Zanker, J. (2023). How do social protection
programmes in low- and middle-income countries affect migration decisions? A
review of the literature, MIDEQ Working Paper. Coventry: MIDEQ. Available at:
https://www.mideq.org/en/resources-index-page/social-protection-migration-global-
south/.
Cover image
Receiving cash transfers – Sierra Leone. Photo by Dominic Chavez/World Bank . CC
BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Funding
This work has been funded by the UKRI Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF)
[Grant Reference: ES/S007415/1]. The GCRF is a five-year £1.5 billion fund aimed
at addressing the problems faced by developing countries.
License Information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Under this licence, you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license and
to the MIDEQ website, if referencing digitally, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the
licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use this material for commercial
purposes.
The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
represent the views of the institutions with which they are affiliated, Coventry
University or the MIDEQ funders UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the Global
Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) or Irish Aid. MIDEQ funders are also not
responsible for any use that may be made of the information herein.
Contact MIDEQ
Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations (CTPSR)
Coventry University, IV5, Innovation Village
Cheetah Road, Coventry, CV1 2TL UK
Tel. +44 24 7765 1182
E-mail: mideq@coventry.ac.uk
