in the international migration literature (Ilahi and Jafarey 1999; Massey et al. 1993; McKenzie and Rapoport 2007).

Moreover, our results indicate the importance of positional variables in the household – with heads or spouses constrained from making the move – and the equal propensity of males and females to migrate to urban areas. Contrary to the expectation that males would be more likely to leave their communities for welfare improvement, our results indicate that females also benefit from urban migration opportunities. Brockerhoff and Eu (1993), in their demographic and health studies of eight Sub-Saharan African countries including Uganda, associate rural-urban migration with females in their twenties who reach cities for marriage purposes. However, females may also leave their communities for reasons other than marriage, such as independence from social and family constraints, employment, and education (Chant 1992; Tacoli 1998).

In addition, our findings suggest that rainfall deficits, particularly on maize production, drive migration to urban areas—where welfare gains are highest. In the absence of rainfall shocks, a rural household faces a lower risk of food insecurity and consequentially relies less on migration as a livelihood strategy. After experiencing a rainfall shock, urban migration – and an exit from agriculture – becomes a more salient option for households seeking to escape this covariate risk. Meanwhile, one’s distance to urban areas and urban migrant networks matter for making the rural move, suggesting that these factors lead to an inferior choice relative to urban moves. People face difficulties in reaching cities when they live in remote areas, given the long distances and high transportation costs, while those lacking urban ethnic-based networks opt instead to move to rural areas. Finding ways to remove these constraints will enhance urban migration opportunities for rural households, especially for those individuals of an economically active age.

# **VI. Conclusion**

Our findings indicate that migration, particularly to urban destinations, can offer considerable welfare improvements as predicted by the traditional labor migration model. Yet the evidence presented here suggests that push factors such as rainfall deficits for cereal production lead one to undertake urban migration. In contrast, distance to the regional capital and thin urban migrant networks increase initial migration costs, thus restricting migrant candidates to moves to rural destinations. The findings also reveal that an increase in the intensity of conflict forces young adults to move to rural areas. In addition to these migration factors that are external to household control, the findings expose how education leverages higher consumption levels through out-migration, and how female children of the head are as likely to move to urban areas as their male counterparts.

Drawing on these conclusions, the study can propose four key policy implications. First, the welfare impact of migration strongly supports urbanization and pro-rural-urban migration policies for their linkage to poverty reduction in Uganda and similar developing countries. Such policies can transform the lives of rural individuals prone to shocks by offering them migration opportunities to boost their earning potential in urban areas. Second, the development of road infrastructure, while increasing the connectedness of rural areas and developing access to markets, would also likely reduce the financial burdens of migration through a reduction in transport costs, thus increasing the capacity to migrate to urban areas. Addressing this constraint could be of particular benefit to those who live in remote areas that are far from a city or town, as well as those who have a weak urban migrant network. Third, to ensure females take full advantage of urban migration opportunities for their own welfare and to facilitate remittance transfers to their parent households, programs that to delay young women’s age at marriage – such as adolescent 33