poverty line 6.6 percent higher among migrant-sending households, even after remittances are accounted for.<sup>5</sup> These estimates are reported in columns (6) and (7) of table (4).

Linking migration status to administrative statistics from the migrant’s home mahalla further clarifies the strong descriptive association between the local economic context and migration patterns. Table (5) reports a set of regressions on the same binary variable for a household having a migrant member and demonstrates the association with several indicators of well-being grouped by national quintile. Column (1) in table (5) can be interpreted as demonstrating that the greater the share of the resident population receiving social protection payments, the higher the share of households that send a migrant abroad. The comparison should be understood as being with respect to the bottom quintile: the top three national quintiles of social protection recipient areas are significantly, and increasingly, greater sources of migrants abroad. At the upper end of the distribution of the resident share working in small family enterprises (reported in column 3 of table (5)) there is likewise a significantly greater share of households that send members abroad for work.

**Table 5: Mahalla Administrative Records and Households with a Current Migrant Abroad**

|||**OLS: Current**<br>|**Migrant= 1, N**<br>|**o Migrant= 0**<br>|<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**(1)**|**(2)**|**(3)**|**(4)**|**(5)**|
|Benchmarking against Quintile 1 of...|_Share of_<br>_residents_<br>_receiving social_<br>_protection_|_Share of wage_<br>_employed_<br>_residents_|_Share of_<br>_residents_<br>_employed in a_<br>_family_<br>_business_|_Share of_<br>_resident_<br>_graduates of_<br>_college in_<br>_2017/ 2018_|_Share of_<br>_resident_<br>_graduates of_<br>_lyceum in_<br>_2017/ 2018_|
|Quint 2|0.029|-0.041**|-0.024|-0.022|-0.038*|
||(0.020)|(0.019)|(0.019)|(0.020)|(0.020)|
|Quint 3|0.065***|-0.055***|-0.027|0.006|-0.077***|
||(0.022)|(0.019)|(0.020)|(0.021)|(0.019)|
|Quint 4|0.065***|-0.055***|-0.002|-0.009|-0.093***|
||(0.023)|(0.020)|(0.019)|(0.021)|(0.019)|
|Quint 5|0.090***|-0.057***|0.040**|0.005|-0.056***|
||(0.025)|(0.020)|(0.019)|(0.020)|(0.019)|
|Household Size|0.025***|0.022***|0.025***|0.025***|0.025***|
||(0.002)|(0.003)|(0.002)|(0.002)|(0.003)|
|Urban Locality|-0.039**|-0.072***|-0.043**|-0.038**|-0.037**|
||(0.017)|(0.018)|(0.017)|(0.018)|(0.017)|
|Constant|0.087***<br>(0.027)|0.176***<br>(0.029)|0.117***<br>(0.027)|0.133***<br>(0.029)|0.151***<br>(0.028)|
|Number of observations|4,010|3,729|3,970|3,910|3,770|
|R2|0.104|0.104|0.105|0.102|0.114|
|Adjusted R2|0.099|0.099|0.101|0.098|0.109|

_note: .01 - ***; .05 - **; .1 - *; Controls for Provinces included but not shown_ The converse is true for those localities with greater resident shares who are wage employed, and who are graduates of lyceum in the relevant academic year (table (5) column (5)). This demonstrates that the greater the share of the resident population that is wage employed (table (5) column 3), the lower the share of households that send a migrant abroad. A relevant statistic in this comparison is that about 96 percent of migrants identified in the L2CU phone-based panel between September and

> 5 This comparison is made against other households of similar size living in the same areas.

11