Migration as a route out of poverty in Zimbabwe: Remittance behaviour and Gender. Presentation by Julie Litchfield for British Council International Women's Day March 2016

1. Migration as a Route out of
Poverty in Zimbabwe:
Remittance Behaviour and
Gender
Dr Julie Litchfield
University of Sussex, UK
1

2. People Move
2

3. Starting Point
• In fieldwork carried out by CASS in 2014
“Women migrants were given the name
saviour of the family, …….as they would never
forget home.”
Dr Patience Mutopo Centre for Development Studies,
Chinhoyi University of Technology and Prof Upenyu
Dzingirai, CASS, University of Zimbabwe.
3

4. Key Research Questions
• How do we understand why women migrants are “the
saviour of the family”?
• New Economics of Labour Migration (Oded Stark and
David Bloom, AER 1985)
• Selection
• female migrants differ in their personal attributes
• E.g. are better educated, have greater occupational mobility, are
younger or have left young children at home
• Remittance motives
• female migrants respond differently to conditions at home
• E.g. are more altruistic or are more conditioned by gendered
norms around the primacy of the family 4

5. Overview
•Background to research project
•Project methodologies and survey sites
•Findings and Analysis
• Perceptions of migration as a route out of
poverty
• Migrant profile – gender differences
• Remittance patterns by gender of migrant
• Econometric model of factors affecting
remittance receipt by households
•Discussion 5

6. • funded by the Department for International
Development (DfID), UK
• http://migratingoutofpoverty.dfid.gov.uk
• Partners for Zimbabwe research
• Centre for Applied Social Sciences (CASS), University of
Zimbabwe
• African Centre for Migration and Society (ACMS), Wits
University
6

7. Methodology
• Household and community surveys in three districts of
Zimbabwe in April/May 2015
• Sample is approximately 1200 households
• ***Not nationally representative
• Questionnaires cover a wide range of topics
• Household level data on dwelling, assets, sources of income,
consumption, perceptions of poverty and migration, receipt and
use of remittances
• Individual level data on demographics, economic activity
• Including data for current migrants at destination
• A migrant is defined as someone who in the past has been a
member of the HH but is CURRENTLY away and has
been away from 3 months or more
7

8. 8

9. Do households believe migration is a
route out of poverty?
All HHs HHs with
migrants
HHs w/out
migrants
HHs receiving
remittances
56% 55% 58% 60%
FHHs
with
migrants
MHHs
with
migrants
FHHs
with
migrants &
receiving
remittances
FHHs with
FEMALE
migrants &
receiving
remittances
58% 54% 64% 61%
9

10. Remittances and Migrant
Gender
Percentage of Migrants Sending Remittances
Male Female
Cash 53% 46%
Goods 50% 64%
Both 34% 41%
Mean Amount Sent (US$) per year*
Male Female
Cash 388 260
Goods 204 238
10
*NB these are not national estimates and are likely to be under-reported

11. Selection: Are female migrants
different from male migrants?
•Destination
•Age at migration
•Reason for migrating
•Occupational mobility
•Children left behind
11

12. 484
37
575
174
7
241
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Internal
International: other
International: SA
Number of migrants
Destinations of migrants
male female
12

13. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
male female
Median Age at Migration
Internal International: SA
13

14. Reasons for migrating
Male Female
Job transfer/New Job 10% 6%
Seeking better job 73% 56%
Marriage/family 1% 16%
Education 2% 5%
Return to previous job 9% 13%
Other 5% 4%
14

15. Children left behind
Percentage of migrants with dependent
children at home
Male Female
22% 33%
Mean Remittances Sent home (US$) per year*
Male Female
Kids at home 243 220
No Kids at home 191 248
15*NB these are not national estimates and are likely to be under-reported

16. Motives: Do female migrants
respond differently to conditions at
home?
• Remittance motivations
• Altruism
• Remittances are sent home to support families needs
• Older parents, dependent children, low incomes
• Exchange
• Remittances are sent home in return for benefits (real or
promised)
• Inheritance, livelihood on return home
16

17. Econometric model
• Model the probability that a household receives
remittances
• Independent variables
• HH demographics such as
• age, gender and education level of household head
• number of household members
• number of migrant members
• children left behind by migrant
• HH assets and living standards
• home ownership
• home size m2
• Expenditure per capita
• Location 17

18. Male
migrants
Female
Migrants
HH demographics
Age of HH head + +
Gender of HH head 0 0
Number of members away + +
Number of members at home 0 +
Presence of dependent children of
migrant
+ +
HH Assets and Living Standards
Home ownership 0 0
Size of dwelling m2 + 0
Per capita HH expenditure + 0
LOCATION
GWANDA - - 18

19. Summary of Findings
• Perceptions of migration as a way out of poverty depend
heavily on remittance receipt, in cash or in goods
• FHHs are the most positive
• Both male and female migrants remit but send different
types of remittances
• Men more likely to send cash, women goods, but women send
both cash and goods
• Motivations for remittances differ
• Remittances from male migrants fit the exchange hypothesis
• Remittances from female migrants fit more closely to the altruism
hypothesis
19

20. Discussion
•Separating altruistic vs exchange
behaviour from gendered rules and
norms is difficult
•Policy implications
20