Common use of OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS Clause in Contracts

OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS. Table 4 presents estimated effects of return migration on the labor market, where these estimates group the data by occupations. Thus, each worker’s wage and employment is a function of the proportion of return migrants in his region that have the same occupation. The first column of Table 4 presents regressions that include all occupations, while the next four columns present estimates of specific occupational groups: clerks and salesmen (column 2), farm workers (column 3), skilled laborers in construction and manufacturing (column 4), and unskilled laborers in construction and manufacturing (column 5). I do not present results for managers, teachers and engineers (the most skilled occupational group) because these estimated effects were consistently insignificant. As was the case in Tables 2 and 3, the basic results from this table imply that return migration has a positive effect on wages but a negative effect on employment. The findings are not as consistent as those from table 2 and 3. Of the ten OLS models estimated for the wage equation, only four had even marginal significance. For farm workers (column 3) and unskilled laborers (column 4), return migration tends to increase wages, but this is not necessarily true for any other occupation. The IV estimates in the wage equation are extremely unstable, which can be seen by the large standard errors reported. Therefore, there is very little confidence in the appropriateness of IV in these particular equations. The negative effect of migration on employment is considerably more consistent than the positive effect on wages. In the OLS estimates, the models both with and without district fixed effects show that the effect of migration in the full samples (column 1) was negative and significant. When separating the sample into specific occupations (columns 2-5) the effects are less consistent. For both clerks (column 2) and farm workers (column 3) the effect on employment is negative and significant, but only when not including district fixed effects. For unskilled laborers, the negative effect less sensitive to model specification. In the employment models using IV, there appears to be some estimation problems, as the standard errors get much larger in these equations. The negative effect of migration on employment shows up in these estimates for both the full sample model with and without district fixed effects, but the standard errors are ten times what they were in the OLS specification. Likewise, in only two of the eight sub-samples is the effect on employment statistically significant. Opposite of the OLS result, the IV employment estimates for farm workers with district fixed effects show a positive effect of return migration on employment, while this effect was negative for the full sample [8].