metadata: authors: 0: author: Mohamed,Karim Badr El-Din
1: author: Herrera Aguilera,Santiago
count: Egypt, Arab Republic of
docna: 0: docna: Internal migration in Egypt : levels,
            determinants, wages, and likelihood of employment
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Labor Markets,Education Reform and Management,Educational Sciences,Food Security,Employment and Unemployment
teratopic: Culture and Development,Gender,Health, Nutrition and Population,Social Development,Communities and Human Settlements
abstracts: cdata!: This paper describes stylized facts
            about internal migration and the labor force in Egypt, and
            shows how internal migration in the country is low compared
            with international standards. Using aggregate labor force
            survey data, the paper shows how individuals migrate to
            governorates with higher wages. With a Mincerian equation,
            the analysis finds that migrants earn premiums with respect
            to non-migrants, except for those migrants with low
            education levels. The aggregate labor statistics reveal
            lower unemployment rates among migrants, a phenomenon that
            is verified by an employment equation. According to the
            econometric results, migrants are more likely to be
            employed, even after controlling for other observable
            individual characteristics.  Finally, the paper estimates a
            Probit model for the decision to migrate, finding that more
            educated individuals are more likely to migrate,
            agricultural workers have a lower probability of migrating,
            and individuals from governorates in which food production
            for own consumption is higher are less likely to migrate.
            These results suggest that low educational attainment and
            the "food problem", which ties resources to food
            production to meet subsistence requirements, are at the root
            of low migration in Egypt.
geo_reg_key: 517202,119229,517191
repnme: repnme: Internal migration in Egypt : levels,
            determinants, wages, and likelihood of employment
display_title: Internal migration in Egypt :
            levels, determinants, wages, and likelihood of employment
listing_relative_url: /research/2012/08/16598470/internal-migration-egypt-levels-determinants-wages-likelihood-employment
topicv3: Levels of Education m1326138 478,Agriculture and Food Security m1326205 435,Education m1327048 470,Jobs m1503931 2670,Unemployment m1504051 2747
publishtoextweb_dt: 2012-08-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Culture and Development,Gender,Health, Nutrition and Population,Social Development,Communities and Human Settlements
no_of_pages: 29
author_keys: 0: author_key: 1091389
1: author_key: 167039
model_extractions: WPS6166 Policy Research Working Paper 6166

# Internal Migration in Egypt

Levels, Determinants, Wages, and Likelihood of Employment _Santiago Herrera Karim Badr_ The World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit August 2012
Policy Research Working Paper 6166

# **Abstract**

This paper describes stylized facts about internal migration and the labor force in Egypt, and shows how internal migration in the country is low compared with international standards. Using aggregate labor force survey data, the paper shows how individuals migrate to governorates with higher wages. With a Mincerian equation, the analysis finds that migrants earn premiums with respect to non-migrants, except for those migrants with low education levels. The aggregate labor statistics reveal lower unemployment rates among migrants, a phenomenon that is verified by an employment equation. According to the econometric results, migrants are more likely to be employed, even after controlling for other observable individual characteristics. Finally, the paper estimates a Probit model for the decision to migrate, finding that more educated individuals are more likely to migrate, agricultural workers have a lower probability of migrating, and individuals from governorates in which food production for own consumption is higher are less likely to migrate. These results suggest that low educational attainment and the “food problem”, which ties resources to food production to meet subsistence requirements, are at the root of low migration in Egypt.

This paper is a product of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Middle East and North Africa Region. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank. org. The authors may be contacted at sherrera@worldbank.org and kmohamed@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **Internal migration in Egypt: Levels, determinants, wages, and likelihood of employment**

Santiago Herrera<sup>1</sup> Karim Badr<sup>2</sup> JEL Classification: R23, J61 Keywords: Egypt, Internal Migration, employment, wages Sector Board: POV

- 1 Santiago Herrera is lead country economist, World Bank , Cairo Office

- 2 Karim Badr is research analyst, World Bank, Cairo Office.
# **Introduction**

Although Egypt (pop. 83 million in 2011) experienced striking economic growth alongside a variety of developmental improvements from 2004 till 2010, spatial inequality and poverty persist. Egyptians in urban and Lower Egypt enjoy higher living standards than those in rural and Upper Egypt, yet internal migration rates are surprisingly low compared to other countries.

This paper offers three explanations for the low migration rates: 1) low educational level, 2) labor is tied up in agricultural activity either as paid workers or unpaid family workers, and 3) rural households’ ability to raise a portion of their food offsetting the impact of soaring food prices and reducing the incentive to migrate. The paper also finds two telling characteristics of internal migrants: 1) they are more likely to find employment than non-migrants; and 2) they earn higher wages, in particular the more educated individuals.

# **Literature Review**

All existing studies address the issue of internal migration in Egypt without, however, suggesting why the rates are comparatively low: Wahba, “An Overview of Internal and International Migration in Egypt” (2007) used the Egypt Labor Market Panel Survey (ELMPS 06) to demonstrate that while internal migration increased in 1998 -2006, the rate remained very low. The author notes that both rural-to- urban and urban-to- rural migration increased in that period as did commuting patterns.

Zohry, “The Development Impact of Internal Migration: Findings from Egypt” (2009) discussed the main motivations behind internal and international migration in Egypt drawing on field work in two governorates (Cairo and Beni Suief ). Zohry suggested that migrants were more often forced to move by dire economic necessity rather than the wish to seek a better living situation.

# **Stylized Facts**

# Data

This study used the Labor Force Survey conducted by the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) for the first quarter of year 2010. The survey has over 60 questions, clustered in three sections: 1) demographic and professional status (28 questions); 2) employed characteristics (26 questions); and 3) unemployed characteristics (5 questions). The survey has 88,000 respondents.

2
An internal migrant is defined as an individual who has left the governorate of residence since birth in order to live in another region/governorate.<sup>3</sup> The internal migration rate is calculated as a ratio of the number of migrants to that of the total population.

Although Egypt’s economy is in a transitional phase, internal migration has lessened rather than increased. Internal migration rates declined during the 1970s, but stabilized since the mid2000s, oscillating around 4% between 2007 and 2009, and reaching 6.1 percent in Q1 2010 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Internal Migration Rate in Egypt <!-- Start of picture text --> Internal Migration Rate - Egypt<br>12<br>10<br>8<br>6<br>4<br>2<br>0<br>1976 1986 1996 2006 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 Q1 2010<br><!-- End of picture text --> Source: CAPMAS and authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Egypt’s internal migration rates have not only declined over time, they are low by international standards. The world average internal migration rate as a share of working-age population is around 15 percent, while in Egypt it is 8 percent (see Figure 2).

> 3 Egypt is divided into 28 governorates.

3
Figure 2- Internal Migration Rate by Country <!-- Start of picture text --> Internal Migration (% of Working Age<br>population)<br>70%<br>60%<br>50%<br>40%<br>30%<br>20% 8%<br>10%<br>0%<br>India 2001 Paraguay 2001 Morocco 1998 Honduras 2003 Congo, DR 2005 Armenia 1999 Albania 2005 Vitnam 1992 Colombia 1995 Brazil 2001 Nicaragua 2001 Haiti 2001 Kyrgyz Rep 1997 Croatia 2004 Cambodia 2004 Mongolia 2002 Madagascar 2001 Egypt 2009 Micronesia 2000<br><!-- End of picture text --> Sources: World Development Report 2010; Egypt: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey 2009; India: Bahgat, Ram B. 2009.

Men and women show similar migration rates, with the rate of migration among males (6 percent) slightly lower than that of females (6.2 percent) (see Tables A1 and A2 in the appendix). However, the reasons for migration greatly differ between men women, as described later in the paper.

# **Direction of Migration**

Whether from urban or rural areas, most migrants prefer cities and towns as destinations. Rural migrants have a somewhat higher tendency to choose a rural locality (18.2 percent) compared to urban migrants (13.5 percent). In other words, urban migrants have a higher preference for cities and towns (86.5 percent) than rural migrants (81.7percent; Ssee Table 1).

Table 1 – Direction of Migration – Urban/Rural (classified according to place of origin)

||Current|Location||
|---|---|---|---|
|Previous Location|Urban|Rural|Total|
|Urban|86.5|13.5|100|
|Rural|81.7|18.3|100|
|Total|84.6|15.4|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey 4
Sixty-one percent of migrants currently residing in cities and towns came from other urban areas, while 47.8 percent of migrants living in rural areas came from the countryside (see Table 2).

Table 2 – Direction of Migration - Urban/Rural (classified according to destination)

|Previous Location|Current l<br>Urban||ocation<br>Rural|Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Urban|61.0||52.2|59.6|
|Rural|39.0||47.8|40.4|
|Total|100||100|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey

# **Migration by Region**

We considered seven regions in Egypt: 1) Cairo governorate; 2) urban Lower Egypt, including three metropolitan governorates (Alexandria, Port Said and Suez); 3) rural Lower Egypt; 4) urban Upper Egypt including urban Giza; 5) rural Upper Egypt (including rural Giza); 6) urban Frontier governorates; and 7) rural Frontier governorates.

Lower Egypt is the preferred destination for migrants (64 percent), followed by Cairo (17 percent), as shown in Table 3. The majority of migrants from Cairo (70 percent) chose Lower Egypt as a destination, as did 46.5 percent of people migrating from Upper Egypt. Additionally 74.9 percent of migrants from Lower Egypt moved to different localities in the same region.

# **Direction of Migration**

Table 3 – Direction of Migration- Region and Urban/Rural (classified according to origin)

|Previous Region|Cairo|Lower<br>Urban|Lower<br>Rural|Curre<br>Upper<br>Urban|nt Region<br>Upper<br>Rural|Frontier<br>Urban|Frontier<br>Rural|Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Cairo|3.3|54.8|15.5|20.5|4.5|1.3|0.1|100|
|Lower Urban|26.5|45.1|15.7|6.3|1.4|4.2|0.7|100|
|Lower Rural|9.5|60.7|24.9|2.9|0.5|1.2|0.3|100|
|Upper Urban|30.7|34.9|6.7|18.9|4.1|4.6|0.1|100|
|Upper Rural|20.6|41.9|10.3|15.2|6.4|4.6|1.1|100|
|Frontier Urban|16.9|12.7|4.2|7.0|5.6|49.3|4.2|100|
|Frontier Rural|10.5|26.3|31.6|0.0|0.0|5.3|26.3|100|
|Total|17.0|48.4|15.6|11.8|3.1|3.5|0.6|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey 5
Most migrants now living in Cairo were born either in Upper Egypt (49.1 percent) or Lower Egypt (45.4 percent), as shown in Table 4. Migrants to Lower Egypt arrive mainly from other governorates in Lower Egypt (53.75 percent). The majority of migrants now living in Upper Egypt came from either the same region (48.5 percent) or from Cairo (34.1 percent).<sup>4</sup> Table 4 – Direction of Migration – Region and Urban/Rural (classified according to destination)

|Previous Region|Cairo|Lower<br>Urban|Lower<br>Rural|Curre<br>Upper<br>Urban|nt Region<br>Upper<br>Rural|Frontier<br>Urban|Frontier<br>Rural|Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Cairo|4.0|23.0|20.1|35.3|29.8|7.6|3.1|20.3|
|Lower Urban|30.8|18.4|19.9|10.6|9.4|23.4|25.0|19.8|
|Lower Rural|14.7|32.8|41.7|6.4|4.1|9.1|15.6|26.2|
|Upper Urban|31.1|12.4|7.4|27.7|23.4|22.3|3.1|17.3|
|Upper Rural|18.0|12.9|9.8|19.2|31.0|19.3|28.1|14.9|
|Frontier Urban|1.3|0.3|0.3|0.8|2.3|17.8|9.4|1.3|
|Frontier Rural|0.2|0.2|0.7|0.0|0.0|0.5|15.6|0.3|
|Total|100|100|100|100|100|100|100|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Migrants now residing in Cairo came mainly from urban areas in either Lower (30.8 percent) or Upper (31 percent) Egypt. Aside from those now in Cairo, the majority of migrants stayed within their region, for example 32.7 percent of those living in Urban Lower Egypt came from different governorates in Urban Lower Egypt. Almost half (48.4 percent) of all migrants from all regions reside in Lower Urban Egypt. (See tables 3 & 4.) Urban governorates - except Cairo - absorb the highest inflows of migrants, followed by Frontier governorates (South Sinai and Red Sea) where tourism offers employment possibilities (Table 5).

> 4 The high migration rate from Cairo to urban Upper Egypt is due to the inclusion of urban Giza, which is part of Greater Cairo, within the urban Upper Egypt category.

6
Table 5– Net Migration Flows by Governorate

|Governorate|Net Migration Flows|Governorate|Net Migration Flows|
|---|---|---|---|
|Port Said|36.5%|Beni Suief|-1.7%|
|Suez|35.7%|Cairo|-2.4%|
|Red Sea|19.4%|Luxor|-2.4%|
|6 October|18.2%|Fayoum|-3.5%|
|Ismailia|17.4%|Beheira|-4.0%|
|North Sinai|9.5%|Gharbeyya|-4.8%|
|Qalubia|8.8%|Aswan|-4.8%|
|Giza|8.6%|Dakahlia|-4.9%|
|Alexandria|7.2%|Minya|-4.9%|
|Helwan|6.2%|Qena|-5.0%|
|Matrouh|4.6%|Menoufia|-5.1%|
|New Valley|1.6%|Sharqia|-5.4%|
|Kafr el-Sheikh|0.3%|Assyut|-6.0%|
|South Sinai|0.0%|Sohag|-6.0%|
|||Damietta|-7.2%|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Urban governorates, new cities, Lower Egypt and Frontier governorates are the destinations for most migrants, the majority of whom originated in Cairo and Upper Egypt governorates.

# **Reasons for Migration**

The LFS asks respondents the reasons for migrating, and allows several possible responses: for work, for education, for marriage, to accompany others, or other reasons. Table 6 presents the distribution of migrants, by gender, according to the reason for migrating. The majority of internal migrants (40.4 percent) change localities to accompany someone. Marriage is the reason behind 27.3 percent of migrations, followed by employment (23.36 percent).

While most men migrate to work (45.5 percent) or accompany a migrant (32.2 percent), women migrate because of marriage (45.3 percent) or to accompany a migrant (48.6 percent).

Table 6 – Reasons for Internal Migration by Gender

|Reason for Migration|Male|Female|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|For Work Only|45.4|1.0|23.4|
|Education|1.7|0.7|1.2|
|Marriage|9.5|45.8|27.6|
|Accompany|32.3|48.7|40.4|
|Others|11.1|3.9|7.5|
|Total|100|100|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey 7
Most migrants (40 percent), regardless of their origins and destinations, migrate to accompany someone. Marriage is the second most frequent reason for migration in any direction; with the exception of rural to urban migration where 26.6 percent migrants move to seek work.

Table 7 – Direction of Migration and Reasons

|||Direction o|f Migration||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Reason of Migration|Urban-Urban|Urban-Rural|Rural - Urban|Rural - Rural|
|For work only|18.8|16.3|26.7|17.5|
|Education|1.3|0.3|0.7||
|Marriage|33.3|33.9|23.4|28.1|
|Accompany|40.9|40.2|42.1|45.2|
|Others|5.7|9.5|7.2|9.2|
|Total|100|100|100|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Most men migrate either to work or accompany another migrant (more than one-third each). Employment is the reason behind migration from rural to urban localities (53 percent) as well as from one rural area to another. Women mostly migrate because of marriage or to accompany a migrant. The percentage that migrates for work is negligible (see Tables A3 and A4 in the appendix).

# **Internal Migration – Labor Mobility**

Those who migrate to work are mostly males (97.8% of migrants to work are males while 2.2% are females), and the distribution of these migrants by level of education is multimodal (Table 8): the biggest fraction is composed by illiterate workers (26%) and starts decreasing gradually with the level of attainment until it reaches the technical secondary level (25%), and then the university level at 17%.

Table 8 – Educational Attainment of Migrants (for work only)

|Education level|Percent|
|---|---|
|Illiterate|26.1|
|Read & write|13.0|
|Less than Intermediate level|10.2|
|General Secondary|2.7|
|Technical Secondary|25.3|
|Above Intermediate level|4.4|
|University|17.1|
|Above university|1.2|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey 8
The preferred destinations for those who migrate to work are Lower Egypt (56.6 percent), followed by Cairo (22.8 percent). Those who left Cairo for work reasons went largely to Lower Egypt (70.8 percent) or Upper Egypt (19.4 percent). Lower Egypt was also the prime destination for migrants from Upper Egypt (41.4 percent), followed by Cairo (30.5 percent).

Table 9- Direction of Migration (for work only) – Regions (classified according to origin)

||Current Region|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Previous location|Cairo|Lower Egypt|Upper Egypt|Frontier|Total|
|Cairo|2.9|70.9|19.4|6.8|100|
|Lower Egypt|20.5|69.3|5.6|4.6|100|
|Upper Egypt|30.6|41.5|21.2|6.8|100|
|Frontier|14.8|14.8|11.1|59.3|100|
|Total|22.9|56.6|13.5|7.1|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey The majority of those migrating to Cairo for work came from Upper Egypt (55.3 percent) and Lower Egypt (41.9 percent). Migrants from Lower and Upper Egypt tend to change localities within their home region.

Table 10- Direction of Migration (for work only) – Regions (classified according to destination)

||Current Region|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Previous location|Cairo|Lower Egypt|Upper Egypt|Frontier|Total|
|Cairo|1.2|11.7|13.4|9.0|9.3|
|Lower Egypt|41.9|57.4|19.5|30.8|46.8|
|Upper Egypt|55.3|30.4|65.1|39.7|41.4|
|Frontier|1.6|0.6|2.0|20.5|2.4|
|Total|100|100|100|100|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey

# **Wages and Internal Migration**

There is a positive correlation between governorates with higher net migration inflows and higher average monthly wages in these governorates. The relation is more obvious when the migration rates are calculated using only those who migrate to work only (i.e. discarding those who migrate for marriage, or studying). Figure 3 shows the relationship between demeaned net migration to work against demeaned monthly wages by governorate.

9
Figure 3 – Demeaned Wages and Demeaned Migrants (for work only) <!-- Start of picture text --> cairo<br>6-Oct<br>alexandria<br>ismailia<br>kafr el sheikh qualiobiagiza port said red sea suez<br>north sinaihelwan<br>matrouh<br>new val ey l uxor damiettasouth sinai<br>bani suef<br>aswan<br>fayoum dakahlia<br>menoufia assiut qenagarbeyya<br>beheira menia sharkia<br>sohag<br>-400 -200 0 200 400<br>dmwage<br>denetmig2 Fitted values<br>10<br>5<br>0<br>-5<br>-10<br><!-- End of picture text --> Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey

# **Do migrants earn higher wages?**

Migrants receive, on average, slightly higher monthly wages (EGP1133.) than non-migrants (1033.EGP). Migrants’ wage premium compared to non-migrants increases with educational attainment (see Table 11).

Table 11- Mean Wages (in EGP) by Educational Level for Migrants and Non-migrants

|Education level|Non-migrants|Migrants|
|---|---|---|
|Illiterate|953|853|
|Read & Write|955|1222|
|Less than Intermediate|865|807|
|General Secondary|1005|877|
|Tech. Secondary|990|976|
|Above Intermediate|977|1030|
|University|1275|1422|
|Above university|2385|4909|

An OLS model (where the dependent variable is log hourly wage) controlling for levels of education and introducing a migration dummy, reveals that migrants receive a 4.7 percent higher wage premium compared to non-migrants (see Table 12). Introducing age or experience 10
to this model renders the migrant dummy insignificant. One explanation could be the remarkably high age (and experience) profiles to migrants compared to non-migrants, as migrants’ average age is 41.5 years compared to 25 years for non-migrants, and average migrant experience is around 28 years compared to 18 years for non-migrants.

Table 12 – Wages and Migration

|VARIABLES<br>ln_hrwage|
|---|
|Read/Write<br>-0.0730***<br>(0.0214)|
|Below Intermediate<br>-0.105***<br>(0.0205)|
|Gen. Secondary<br>-0.0699<br>(0.0443)|
|Tech. Secondary<br>-0.0399**|
|(0.0165)|
|Above Intermediate<br>0.0703***|
|(0.0268)|
|University<br>0.150***|
|(0.0192)|
|Above University<br>0.839***|
|(0.0664)|
|Male<br>0.281***|
|(0.0148)|
|Formal Labor<br>0.106***|
|(0.0118)|
|Migrant<br>0.0473***|
|(0.0178)|
|Constant<br>1.046***<br>(0.0195)|
|Observations<br>16,652|
|R-squared<br>0.047|
|Standard errors in parentheses|
|*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1|

We further ran another simple wage equation model (OLS) with log hourly wage as the dependent variable, controlling for levels of education and introducing interactive dummies of migration with each level of education reveals that migrants with higher levels of education receive higher wage premiums compared to non-migrants (see Table 13). A summary of the results is given in the appendix.

11
Table 13 – Wages and Migration

|VARIABLES|ln_hrwage|
|---|---|
|Read/Write|-0.000343|
||(0.0215)|
|Below Intermediate|0.0122<br>|
||(0.0208)<br>|
|Gen. Secondary|0.0669<br>|
||(0.0455)|
|Tech. Secondary|0.0812***<br>|
||(0.0166)|
|Above Intermediate|0.181***|
||(0.0271)|
|University|0.270***|
||(0.0191)|
|Above University|0.871***|
||(0.0710)|
|male|0.235***|
||(0.0151)|
|Male mig|-0.148***|
||(0.0337)|
|age|0.0281***|
||(0.00273)|
|age2|-0.000166***|
||(3.53e-05)|
|Public sec|0.200***|
||(0.0240)|
|Private sec|0.159***|
||(0.0133)|
|Other sec|-0.0959|
||(0.0857)|
|Read/Write mig|-0.123*|
||(0.0679)|
|Below Intermediate mig|-0.0354|
||(0.0624)|
|Gen. Secondary mig|-0.117|
||(0.130)|
|Tech. Secondary mig|0.108***|
||(0.0404)|
|Above Intermediate mig|0.138*|
||(0.0716)|
|University mig|0.270***|
||(0.0409)|
|Above University mig|0.434***|
||(0.161)|
|Constant|0.172***|
||(0.0544)|
|Observations|16,652|
|R-squared|0.106|

Standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 12
# **Reasons for Low Migration Rates**

Three stylized facts presented below suggest three interrelated reasons for Egypt’s reduced internal migration rates. The first is low educational attainment, as migration rates tend to increase with level of education. Second, labor is absorbed by low-productivity agricultural activities, which relates to the third reason for low migration, that of households producing significant portions on their total food consumption, in what has been labled the “food problem” (Gollin, Parente and Rogerson, 2008).

# **Migration and Educational Attainment**

Migration rates increase with educational attainment (Table 14). The correlation may reflect both the larger numbers of workers in lower educational levels, and the greater tendency of highly-educated individuals to migrate. Migration rates among those with the least educational attainment (from illiterate to technical secondary) are low, with a maximum of 8.3 percent for graduates of technical secondary schools. As educational attainment increases, migration rates spike to reach more than 20 percent among migrants possessing post-graduate degrees.

Table 14 – Migration Rate by Educational Attainment

|Education Level|Non-Migrants|Migrants|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|Less than 6 years|99.2|0.8|100|
|Illiterate|91.9|8.1|100|
|Read & Write|94.4|5.6|100|
|Less than intermediate|94.6|5.4|100|
|General Secondary|93.1|6.9|100|
|Tech. Secondary|91.7|8.3|100|
|Above Intermediate|88.8|11.2|100|
|University|87.7|12.3|100|
|Above University|78.9|21.1|100|
|Total|93.8|6.2|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Most migrants have had little education. Around 25 percent are illiterate, and 51.4 percent received less than intermediate level schooling. It is worth noting however, that a significant share of migrants (15.5 percent) possess college degrees.

13
Table 15 – Educational Attainment of Migrants and Non-migrants

|Education level|Non-Migrants|Migrants|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|Less than 6 years|22.8|2.7|21.6|
|Illiterate|19.6|26.2|20.0|
|Read & Write|12.6|11.4|12.6|
|Less than Intermediate|16.0|13.9|15.9|
|General Secondary|3.6|4.1|3.7|
|Tech. Secondary|15.9|21.9|16.3|
|Above Intermediate|2.0|3.8|2.1|
|University|7.3|15.5|7.8|
|Above University|0.2|0.6|0.2|
|Total|100|100|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey

# **Agricultural Sector Involvement**

The second stylized fact that can explain Egypt’s low internal migration rate is involvement in agricultural activities that ties people to the land, often as unpaid family workers. Agricultural workers have lower migration rates than workers with other occupations (see Table 16).

Agricultural activities are typically characterized by low productivity (output per input) and lower wages (see Figure 4) than in other sectors. Using the share of agriculture in total employment as a proxy for productivity, as in Gollin, Parente and Rogerson (2008), it can be seen that governorates with high shares of agriculture, and hence lower productivity, are associated with lower wages.

Figure 4- Wages and Share of Agricultural Sector Employment by Governorate <!-- Start of picture text --> suez<br>cairo 6-Oct<br>red sea<br>helwan<br>north sinai<br>south sinaiport said<br>giza damietta sharkia<br>alexandriaqualiobia dakahlia sohag<br>menia<br>luxor ismailia<br>garbeyya qenaaswan<br>new valley<br>assiut<br>fayoum bani suef<br>matrouh<br>menoufiakafr el sheikh<br>beheira<br>0 20 40 60<br>agriemp<br>lmwage Fitted values<br>7<br>6.8<br>6.6<br>6.4<br>6.2<br>6<br><!-- End of picture text --> Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey 14
# Table 16 – Migration Rate by Economic Activity

|Economic Activity|Non-Migrants|Migrants|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|Agriculture, Forestry|97.3|2.7|100|
|Mining and Quarrying|84.5|15.5|100|
|Manufacturing|89.7|10.3|100|
|Electricity, Gas, Steel|78.0|22.0|100|
|Water supply, Sewage|85.7|14.3|100|
|Construction|92.9|7.1|100|
|Wholesale and Retail|89.6|10.4|100|
|Transportation and Storage|89.5|10.5|100|
|Hotels, Accommodation, Food and restaurants|90.2|9.9|100|
|Information, Telecommunications|84.3|15.7|100|
|Financial, Insurance|87.4|12.6|100|
|Real Estate|92.3|7.7|100|
|Professional, Scientific|89.1|10.9|100|
|Administrative and Support Services|84.2|15.8|100|
|Public Administration|88.4|11.7|100|
|Education|90.4|9.6|100|
|Health and Social Work|91.1|8.9|100|
|Arts, Entertainment|87.8|12.2|100|
|Total|91.8|8.2|100|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Figure 5 shows the relationship between demeaned net migration flows (to work) and demeaned agricultural employment for each governorate. Governorates with high migration rates have a lower share of agricultural employment.

15
Figure 5 – Demeaned Migration for Work and Demeaned Share of Agriculture Employment by Governorate <!-- Start of picture text --> cairo<br>6-Oct<br>alexandria<br>ismailia<br>gizared seasuez port saidqualiobia kafr el sheikh<br>helwannorth sinai<br>matrouh<br>south sinai luxor damiettanew valley<br>bani suef<br>aswan<br>dakahlia fayoum<br>garbeyya qenamenoufiaassiut<br>sharkia menia beheira<br>sohag<br>-20 0 20 40<br>dagriemp<br>denetmig2 Fitted values<br>10<br>5<br>0<br>-5<br>-10<br><!-- End of picture text --> Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Internal migration is low in governorates with a high share of agricultural employment. Agricultural workers generally earn a low wage throughout Egypt and may be unqualified for other jobs, reducing the motivation to migrate. Additionally, unpaid family workers earn nonpecuniary benefits aside from the food they help raise (including proximity to family and the accompanying help-networks, shared rents, often more living space, cleaner air) making them reluctant to incur the additional costs of migrating to other governorates.

Figure 6 shows the negative correlation between demeaned net migration rate (to work) and demeaned share of unpaid family workers by governorate.

16
Figure 6 – Demeaned Net Migration Flows for Work Only and Demeaned Share of Unpaid Family Workers by Governorate <!-- Start of picture text --> cairo<br>6-Oct<br>alexandria<br>ismailia<br>giza port saidqualiobia<br>red seasuez kafr el sheikh<br>north sinhelw a in<br>matrouh<br>south sinaidamietta luxor new valley<br>bani suef<br>aswan<br>dakahlia fayoum<br>assiut<br>qena garbeyya menoufia<br>sharkia meniabeheira<br>sohag<br>-.1 -.05 0 .05 .1 .15<br>dunpaidempag<br>denetmig2 Fitted values<br>10<br>5<br>0<br>-5<br>-10<br><!-- End of picture text --> Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey

# **Household Food Production for Consumption**

Migrants are usually motivated by a better living standard and a higher income to offset the impact of inflation and soaring food prices. Many Egyptian households produce much of their own food, reducing the incentive to migrate.

A ratio (constructed with HIECS 2005) of household food consumption from its own production over total household food consumption, plotted against net migration (to work) rates, yielded a negative correlation. Governorates where households rely on their own food production tend to have lower migration rates (see Figure 7). The ability to purchase food at low prices or low opportunity cost reduces the likelihood of migration.

17
Figure 7- Demeaned Household Subsistence Consumption and Demeaned Net Migration for Work Only <!-- Start of picture text --> cairo<br>alexandria<br>ismailia<br>port saidsuezred sea giza qualiobia kafr el sheikh<br>north sinai<br>matrouh<br>south sinai damietta luxor new valley<br>bani suef<br>aswan<br>fayoumdakahlia<br>assiut garbeyyaqenamenoufia<br>menia sharkia beheira<br>sohag<br>-.2 -.1 0 .1 .2<br>dehhcpc<br>denetmig2 Fitted values<br>10<br>5<br>0<br>-5<br>-10<br><!-- End of picture text --> Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey

# **The Model**

We ran a probit model where the dependent variable is a binary taking ‘1’ for the individual who migrated and ‘0’ for those who did not. The independent variables are a dummy for male; regional dummies (urban areas omitted); Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, and Frontier governorates; education level dummies (illiterate is omitted); age (a continuous variable); dummy if the individual is working in agriculture sector (agrisec); dummy if the individual is unpaid family worker (unpaidfw ); governorate average for share of household food consumption from its own production (hhcpc); and GDP per capita of each governorate.

# **Data and Results**

We used the Labor Market Survey data conducted by the Central Agency of Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS). In the regression we used the cross-section data for the first quarter of calendar year 2010.The regression results confirm the earlier analysis that individuals with higher levels of education have a higher tendency to migrate. The likelihood of migration increases with higher levels of education, except for above intermediate and university graduates.

18
Migrants prefer to reside in metropolitan governorates, Lower Egypt and frontier governorates rather than Upper Egypt. People migrate to governorates with higher GDP per capita and wages.

Workers in agriculture and unpaid family workers have a lower tendency to migrate. Both have negative and significant signs (-0.16 and -0.18, respectively).

Governorates with high household food consumption from its own production have lower tendency of migration.

19
# Table 17 – Probit Model – Internal Migration decision

|VARIABLES|mig|
|---|---|
|Male|-0.0351**|
||(0.0158)<br>|
|Urban area|0.680***|
||(0.0190)|
|Lower Egypt|-0.164***|
||(0.0494)|
|Upper Egypt|-0.412***|
||(0.0423)|
|frontier|0.240***|
||(0.0542)|
|married|0.397***|
||(0.0191)|
|Read & write|0.112***|
||(0.0266)|
|Below Intermediate|0.119***|
||(0.0247)|
|General Secondary|0.184***|
||(0.0410)|
|Tech. Secondary|0.162***|
||(0.0224)|
|Above Intermediate|0.128***|
||(0.0444)|
|University|0.111***|
||(0.0264)|
|Above University|0.286**|
||(0.122)|
|age|0.0160***|
||(0.000474)|
|agrisec|-0.164***|
||(0.0374)|
|unpaidfw|-0.188***|
||(0.0680)|
|hhcpc|-0.958***|
||(0.239)|
|logrgdp|0.305***|
||(0.100)|
|Constant|-5.151***|
||(0.888)|
|Observations|87,998|
|Standard errors in|parentheses|
|*** p<0.01, ** p<0|.05, * p<0.1|

20
# Table 18 – Probit Model – Internal Migration for Work Only

We ran the same model for those who migrated to work. The dependent variable is a binary which takes ‘1’ if the person migrated to work and ‘0’ otherwise. The results concur with the previous model.

|VARIABLES|migwrk|
|---|---|
|Male|1.458***|
||(0.0642)<br>|
|Urban area|0.421***<br>|
||(0.0361)|
|Lower Egypt|-0.205**<br>|
||(0.0915)|
|Upper Egypt|-0.357***|
||(0.0783)|
|frontier|0.469***|
||(0.0922)|
|married|0.601***|
||(0.0443)|
|Read & write|-0.00687|
||(0.0490)|
|Below Intermediate|-0.115**|
||(0.0519)|
|Gen. Secondary|-0.0353<br>|
||(0.0926)|
|Tech. Secondary|0.174***|
||(0.0416)<br>|
|Above Intermediate|0.0662|
||(0.0758)|
|University|0.0264|
||(0.0475)|
|Above University|0.396**<br>|
||(0.164)|
|age|0.0188***|
||(0.000975)|
|agrisec|-0.0794|
||(0.0518)|
|unpaidfw|-0.381*|
||(0.205)|
|hhcpc|-0.956**|
||(0.437)|
|logrgdp|-0.0941|
||(0.180)|
|Constant|-3.592**|
||<br>(1.601)|
|Observations|87,998|
|Standard errors in|parentheses|
|*** p<0.01, ** p<|0.05, * p<0.1|

21
# **Migration and Unemployment**

Unemployment is lower among migrants (6.2 percent) than non-migrants (9.5 percent) and lower still among those who migrated for work (2.6 percent). What is striking is that unemployment rates among migrants and migrants for work are consistently lower in destination governorates with the highest migration inflows (Tables 19 and 20), and even those experiencing high unemployment, such as Port Said with 25% unemployment rate. This might suggest that migrants, especially those migrated to work, have skills that enable them to find jobs.

Furthermore, migrants earn higher wages (after controlling for education level) compared to non-migrants. This may be due to migrant’s matching their skills to the demand for jobs. It also reflects the significance of labor mobility and internal migration as means of achieving higher living standards.

Table 19 – Unemployment Rates of Non-migrants, Migrants and Migrants for Work

||**Overall**|**Non-migrants**|**Migrants**|**Migrants for work**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|2008|9.9|10.2|3.6|0.2|
|2009|9.4|9.7|5.1|1.1|
|2010|9.3|9.5|6.2|2.6|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Table 20 - Unemployment Rates in Governorates with Highest Net Migration Inflows

|Unemployment rate|Overall|Non-migrants|Migrants|Migrated for Work|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Port Said|25|41.82|8.28|0|
|Ismailia|10.4|11.95|7.8|1.59|
|6 October|10.2|9.91|11.04|8.51|
|Red Sea|6.1|14.29|0|0|
|Suez|11.6|22.88|3.13|0|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey Table 21 - Unemployment Rate for Governorates with Highest Net migration for Work Inflows

|Unemployment rate|Overall|Non-migrants|Migrants|Migrated to work|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Cairo|13.4|14.9|5.79|3.6|
|6<sup>th</sup>of October|10.2|9.9|11|8.5|
|Alexandria|11.6|12.5|4.6|0|
|Ismalia|10.4|11.9|7.8|1.5|
|Qalubia|7.8|8.8|3.3|0|

Source: Authors’ calculations using Labor Force Survey To further explore migrants’ employability we ran a probit model for employment (‘1’ if the person is employed and ‘0’ otherwise). The explanatory variables are educational attainment 22
(dummies for each level of education, where illiterate is omitted), male dummy, regional dummies, age, age squared and a dummy for internal migrants.

The results, summarized in Table 22, confirm previous conjectures in the presentation of the stylized facts. The probability of being employed decreases with higher educational attainment, which concurs with higher unemployment rates found among highly-educated individuals. Males are more likely to find employment than females. Unemployment in rural areas is lower than urban areas. Probability of employment increases with age. Most importantly, migrants have a higher probability of being employed than non-migrants even after controlling for education, regions, age and gender (see Table 22). Table 22 – Probit Model – Employment and Migration

|VARIABLES<br>Employed|
|---|
|Read& write<br>0.0996<br>|
|(0.0787)<br> <br>|
|Below Intermediate<br>-0.168**|
|(0.0662)<br> <br>|
|Gen Secondary<br>-0.739***<br>(0.101)|
|Tech. Secondary<br>-0.933***|
|(0.0456)|
|Above Intermediate<br>-1.039***<br>|
|(0.0644)|
|University<br>-1.090***<br>(0.0484)|
|Above University<br>-0.819***<br>(0.166)|
|male<br>0.916***|
|(0.0251)|
|Urban area<br>-0.293***<br>(0.0288)|
|Lower Egypt<br>0.0843**<br>(0.0343)|
|Upper Egypt<br>0.186***<br>|
|(0.0361)|
|frontier<br>0.419***<br>(0.102)|
|age<br>0.126***<br>(0.00629)|
|age2<br>-0.00118***|
|(8.56e-05)|
|mig<br>0.152***<br>(0.0501)|
|Constant<br>-1.160***|
|(0.113)|
|Observations<br>29,475|
|Standard errors in parentheses|
|*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1|

23
# **Conclusions and Direction for Further Work**

Given Egypt’s economic growth and the regional disparity in living standards, we would expect high levels of internal migration and labor mobility to equalize returns on economic benefits. Migrants have a higher probability of employment even in governorates with high unemployment rates, in addition to earning higher wages compared to non-migrants. However, internal migration rates in Egypt were low in periods of economic growth compared to international rates.

In this paper we offered three explanations to low internal migration rate. First is the prevailing low level of educational attainment. Second, labor is tied up in low productivity agricultural activity. The third reason concerns rural households’ ability to produce a significant portion of their food needs and/or offer their members other non-pecuniary benefits, thus reducing the motivation to migrate. Given inflated commodity prices, rent and transportation costs, internal migration, unless a job is secured at the outset, is unaffordable.

Other factors beyond those analyzed and quantified in this report also contribute to low migration rates. For instance, the lack of land tenure security originated by inadequate land titling inhibits small farmers from renting their plots, which would liberate resources for nonagriculture activities or commercial agriculture. Also, the lack of affordable housing in urban centers imposes costs on labor mobility, as well as road congestion. These factors are discussed elsewhere (World Bank 2012). Social factors may also contribute to low migration rates. Although unsupported by data these include attachment to family and related helpnetworks (including access to small loans from a communal savings pool with benefits rotating among members and support in frequent cases of ill health ); the common wisdom that urban areas are already oversaturated with the unemployed; the lack of affordable housing in urban areas except in overcrowded slums lacking basic services and the fact that while a marginal improvement in wages may allow some small amount to be saved or sent home to help family, this is perceived as less valuable than a physical presence, for example to care for children and the elderly while others work. Finally, jobs are often found through extended family/friend/neighborhood networks, another reason for staying home (closer to the source of potential jobs).

24