Skip to main content

Table 13 The impact of migrants’ voting recommendations according to non-migrants

From: The economic side of social remittances: how money and ideas circulate between Paris, Dakar, and New York

Followed Voting advice (non-migrants) (Marginal effects) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Age (years) 0.00272 0.00270 0.0198 0.0266 0.0105
(1.16) (0.88) (1.18) (1.55) (0.58)
Sex (female) 0.0585 0.117 0.870 0.895 0.407
(1.02) (1.52) (1.89) (1.82) (0.97)
Education: High School 0.101 0.0868 1.117* 1.118*  
(ref. none) (1.60) (0.83) (2.38) (2.47)  
Some College 0.0866 0.128 1.450* 1.628**  
(1.19) (1.23) (2.24) (2.77)  
Bachelor 0.125 0.147 1.613* 1.484**  
(1.09) (1.35) (2.54) (2.80)  
Receive Economic 0.121** 0.168* 1.436** 1.548** 1.249*
Remittances (2.79) (2.12) (2.63) (2.96) (2.55)
Talk politics with natives   0.214*** 1.600*** 1.770*** 1.537***
(ref : no)   (3.53) (3.81) (3.99) (3.54)
Freq. of Phone   -0.00405 0.363 0.405 0.354
Calls : weekly   (-0.06) (1.17) (1.28) (1.03)
(ref: daily)      
Monthly   0.118 0.945 1.240* 0.406
  (1.07) (1.57) (2.17) (0.64)
Never   0.265 1.202 1.088 0.878
  (1.82) (1.64) (1.52) (1.44)
Freq. Visits    -0.625 -0.725 -0.825*
To Senegal (<yearly)    (-1.47) (-1.66) (-2.16)
(ref: > yearly)      
Less    0.168 0.00140 -0.0986
   (0.42) (0.00) (-0.27)
Never    0.996 1.285 0.670
   (1.25) (1.61) (0.97)
Employed     0.460  
(ref. unemployed)     (0.79)  
Unionized (yes)      -0.390
(Ref. no)      (-0.70)
N 163 163 163 163 163
  1. Note: Table reports average marginal effects of the logit specification. The marginal effects are evaluated at the means of the data. For binary variables, the marginal effects are the differences between the two categories of the independent variable. All regressions include country-fixed effects. T-statistics in parentheses (*p<0.1 ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01). Source: SSU survey (DIAL, IRD 2012)