Additional estimates suggest that the _type_ of migration matters for welfare: the positive migration-welfare link is driven entirely by households with at least one migrant in an urban area. Column (2) of Table 3 shows the results of estimating a treatment effects model where the treated variable is a household with at least one urban migrant. The estimated coefficient implies that households with urban migrants are more than 86 percent better off than other households in the sample. On the contrary, the estimates for households with only rural migrants in column (3) show that the impact of migration on welfare, although positive, is insignificantly different from zero.

Having at least one migrant in an urban area substantially enhances the likelihood that the sending household will receive remittances, while having only rural migrants does not have a significant impact. Columns (1)-(3) of Table 4 show the results of estimating the likelihood that a household will receive remittances as a function of the same characteristics determining household welfare. The estimates indicate that, all else being equal, households headed by males are less likely to receive remittances, which is consistent with anecdotal evidence that migrants are more likely to remit to femaleheaded households because women tend to use remittances in a more productive manner (e.g., spending on children rather than alcohol and/or tobacco). Larger households and those with more educated heads are less likely to receive remittances, while the youth dependency ratio does not appear to have a significant impact. Home ownership has a strong negative correlation with the probability of receiving remittances, while farm ownership has a significant positive association. Both of these are consistent with the migrant profile and the determinants of migration discussed in the earlier sections. Neither self-employment nor the value of land holdings significantly determines the likelihood to receive remittances, but urban households are less likely to receive them. Most importantly, having an internal migrant significantly enhances the probability that a household will receive remittances (column 1), but this result is driven entirely by urban migrants. Column (3) shows that having a rural migrant has no significant impact on the likelihood of receiving remittances, while column (2) indicates that having an urban migrant has a strong positive effect.

Households with at least one urban migrant can also expect to receive significantly larger amounts of remittances than other households. Columns (4)-(7) of Table 4 show the estimated determinants of the log of per capita remittances, adjusted by regional price differences. The findings are largely consistent with the logit estimates of columns (1)(3). The statistically significant positive coefficient on the migration dummy ( _mstatus_ ) in column (4) indicates that households with migrants are more likely to receive remittances than other households, but as before columns (5) and (6) show that this effect is due entirely to households with at least one urban migrant. Controlling for the potential selection bias in this equation—shown in column (7)—does not qualitatively change the findings, and the statistical insignificance of the ρ parameter suggests that selection is not a substantial problem for this equation.

# **5. Conclusions**

This paper has relied on a recent questionnaire administered to a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian households to learn about the behavior of their migrant members. The findings must be qualified because the individuals currently away (current migrants) were never interviewed and everything learned about them was 12