Migration, remittances and perceptions of quality of life of those staying behind in Ethiopia

This blog was written by Caroline Kariuki.

When I arrived at the University of Sussex on the 4th of February, it was cold, wet and rainy. I had read about the English winter weather but no amount of reading could have prepared me for that day. I think the effect was even more pronounced as 72 hours earlier, I had been sweating in the heat of Nairobi. I quickly learnt that boots, gloves and a good waterproof winter jacket are essential in such weather. Fortunately, as the days passed, I began to acclimatise and appreciate that there is beauty to be found in each season.

The warm welcome I received from Dr Julie Lichfield, Senior Lecturer in Economics, and her colleagues at the University of Sussex made it much easier for me to settle into the university as well as into the beautiful city of Brighton & Hove. During my visit, I had an opportunity to listen to researchers who presented their work during the weekly seminars held at the Sussex Centre for Migration (SCMR) and the department of Economics. While carrying out my research at the University of Sussex, I worked closely with Dr Litchfield who provided invaluable guidance and insight on the preliminary findings from our ongoing research, the title and subject of this blog.

Over the years, there has been increased interest on the relationship between migration and the well-being of household members staying behind in the origin country. Additionally, there is also literature that has considered the relationship between receiving remittances and well-being. For example, research by Gartaula, Visser and Niehof (2012) reveals that Nepalese women in remittance receiving households experience increased objective wellbeing (economic situation, access to food and water, child education, etc.) but not necessarily subjective well-being (feeling separated from partner who has migrated, feeling overburdened with work, problems with disciplining children, etc.).

A more recent study that captures the relationship between migration, remittances and subjective well-being of those staying behind has been carried out by Ivlevs, Nikolova and Graham (2019). Their study uses data from a wide range of origin countries and uses several subjective well-being measures. The authors find that having family members abroad is associated with greater well-being while receiving remittances is linked with increases in well-being especially in poorer contexts. However, we note that Ethiopia was not one of the countries used in the study by Ivlevs, Nikolova and Graham (2019).

Our research aims to fill this gap by presenting findings on the relationship between migration, remittances and perceptions of quality of life of those staying behind in rural households in Ethiopia.  The data used in our research is from one of the Migrating out of Poverty household surveys collected in Ethiopia in September 2018 for the Income and Remittances theme.

Initial findings on the relationship between migration, remittances and perceptions of quality of life of rural households

The questions posed to households with and without migrants about their perceptions of their quality of life include:

1. How satisfied are you now about your household’s living conditions?
2. Comparing now and five years ago, how would you describe the overall quality of life (based on indicators of the economy, health and education) in your household?

Household living conditions and migration

Figure 1: Relationship between satisfaction with household living conditions and migration

Preliminary findings show that households with migrants (internal and/or international) tend to be more satisfied with their household living conditions compared to households without a migrant. Figure 1 above illustrates that 59% of households with both internal and international migrants are satisfied with their living conditions, compared to 43 of households with only internal migrants and 37% of household with no current migrants. Some of this difference is  undoubtedly related to remittance recept: both internal and international migrants take advantage of better work opportunities and save part of their income to send home. A common use of remittances is improvement of the family home.

Household living conditions and remittances

Figure 2: Relationship between satisfaction with household living conditions and remittances

From Figure 2 above, it is evident that households in receipt of remittances seem more satisfied with their living conditions compared to households that do not receive remittances. This supports the view that remittances are often spent on improving housing. The photos at the end of this blog (Figure 5) show the improvement in housing over time which survey participants attribute to receiving remittances. 

Household overall quality of life and migration

Figure 3: Relationship between overall quality of life and migration

Turning to how respondents view their overall quality of life, we see a similar pattern of greater satisfaction among households with migrants, Figure 3 above illustrates that households with migrants (internal and/or international) are more likely to report that their overall quality of life has improved compared to households without a migrant. This is again likely be explained by the receipt of remittances, particularly from international migrants, who, our data suggests, send larger volumes of remittances than internal migrants. Literature shows that remittances can lead to improved sanitary conditions, healthier life styles, proper healthcare and greater educational attainment (Amuedo-Dorantes, 2014).

Household overall quality of life and remittances

Figure 4: Relationship between overall quality of life and remittances

Figure 4 above illustrates that remittance receiving households are more likely to respond that their overall quality of life has improved compared to households that do not receive remittances. Out of the households that receive remittances, 74% report that their overall quality of life has improved, compared to just 54% of the households that do not receive remittances.

Further analysis

The next step in this research will involve using econometric models to estimate the relationship between migration, remittances and income, and measures of subjective well-being.  We will explore how this relationship varies across different contexts. The effect of household head characteristics and the household socio-demographic characteristics will also be considered in this analysis.

Ethiopia is an interesting case study because of the extent of migration both internally and internationally. Our data also suggests that there has been a lot of return migration in response to inter-ethnic conflicts in the country and restrictions on migration to the Gulf States. Furthermore, it will be interesting to find out if Ethiopia conforms to the results presented in the research carried out by Ivlevs, Nikolova and Graham (2019).

References

• Amuedo-Dorantes, C. The good and the bad in remittance flows. IZA World of Labor 2014: 97
• Gartaula HN, Visser L, Niehof A. Socio-Cultural Dispositions and Wellbeing of the Women Left Behind: A Case of Migrant Households in Nepal. Soc Indic Res. 2012;108(3):401–420. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9883-9
• Ivlevs, A., Nikolova, M. & Graham, C. J Population Economics (2019) 32: 113.