“Reexamining the Influence of Conditional Cash Transferon Migration From a Gendered Lens”: Comment

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

In a recent article, “Reexamining the Influence of Conditional Cash Transfers on Migration From a Gendered Lens,” Hughes (2019) claimed that conditional cash transfers, CCT, limit the likelihood of migration by women, compensating them for giving up an attractive migration option. I question the analysis that lies behind this claim. I argue that in seeking to understand the likelihood of women migrating if they participate in a CCT program, issues of selectivity, endogeneity, and optimization cannot be set aside. In particular, it is not that receiving CCT curtails a migration option; it is that not contemplating migration encourages women to accept CCT. And if a household perspective is brought to bear, then a household’s free choices weaken the appeal of migration to women. This reduction in appeal does not arise from an exogenously imposed curb but rather from endogenously determined preferences.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)379-381
Number of pages3
JournalDemography
Volume58
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2021
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Conditional Cash Transfers
  • Household’s optimization
  • Revision of the comparative advantage of household members
  • Selectivity and Endogeneity
  • Women’s migration

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '“Reexamining the Influence of Conditional Cash Transferon Migration From a Gendered Lens”: Comment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this