rate of female labor participation implied that our working samples include a lower percentage of women.

As previously suggested, the sample selection of ENCEL 2017 and the restrictions derived from survey collection imply limitations to the representativeness of the results of this study. Therefore, despite the similarities between our working samples and the originally selected sample, we consider that the results of this study are valid only for the subpopulation analyzed in this study and may only be considered as indicative (but not representative) of the beneficiary population of PROSPERA in rural areas. Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that the results may underestimate the characteristics of occupational mobility of youths, due to the fact that the analysis did not include all of those individuals from the original sample of ENCEL who have migrated from their locality of origin.<sup>27</sup>

# B. _Characteristics of the study group_

Our first approach to characterization is to compare our study sample to similar youths at a national level. Table 1 shows some of the educational and labor characteristics of our study group (ENCEL 2017),<sup>28</sup> as well as of occupied youths in the same age range at the national level and in rural areas of the country (ENIGH 2016). For context, to interpret these data, it is important to emphasize that, while the sample of ENIGH 2016 (national and rural) includes youths that reside in localities of all degrees of marginality, the youths in our sample currently live predominately in localities with high and very high levels of marginalization (8.5% and 72.6%, respectively), while only the remaining 18.9% live in localities with a lower degree of marginalization.<sup>29</sup> When comparing the characteristics of both groups, there are some observed differences between the two that point towards a more unfavorable situation for youths in our study’s sample, both in the area of education, as well as in their employment and labor outcomes. In comparison with the reference populations, in our sample, a lower percentage of youths are still studying, they have fewer years of average schooling, there is a greater proportion of them who are selfemployed, they have lower average labor income (their labor income represents 60% of that received by an average youth at the national level), they are working in occupations with lower status and a smaller proportion of them has access to health services. These contrasts are less

> 27As previously mentioned, Yaschine (2015), with data from ENCEL 2007, which included a representative sample of migrants, identified higher rates of absolute mobility and higher social fluidity for this group.

> 28 The working sample for the study of the determinants of occupational attainment is used since it presents a greater number of cases.

> 29 The youths in our group come from rural localities that in 1995 had a high (62.4%) or very high (37.6%) degree of marginalization. As can be observed, a smaller portion of the localities of current residence has a high or very high degree of marginalization, which is due to the modifications in the marginalization level of the localities of origin where around 68% of our study group still resides, as well as to the change of residence to localities with lesser marginalization by part of the rest of the youths. The marginalization classification from the National Population Council (CONAPO, in Spanish) was used. For the localities of origin, the degree of marginalization for 1995 is used and for the localities of current residence the degree of 2010 was taken.

16