Aid Programs' Unintended Effects: The Case of Progresa and Migration

Angelucci, Manuela

doi:10.2139/ssrn.868646

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conditional policies compel recipients to pursue certain actions in order to receive the transfer: in other words a “pre‐commitment.” If potential recipients want to receive the subsidy, they need to demonstrate that they have complied with the conditions that make them eligible to receive it, just as our theory predicts. As previous works have shown (Angelucci, 2004, 2005; Stecklov et al., ), this conditionality translates into a decreased likelihood of migration. In contrast, unconditional programs such as Procampo, especially when transfer amounts are small, do not provide enough incentives for some recipients to remain in place, and thus tend to contribute to increased migration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Using randomized data from Progresa (now known as Oportunidades —“Opportunities”)—a conditional cash transfer program implemented by the Mexican government with the aim of reducing poverty—Stecklov, Winters, Stampini, and Davis () and Angelucci (2004, 2005) show that on average, Progresa tended to reduce migration levels. Assistance provided by Progresa was dependent upon the recipients' adherence to a particular set of conditions.…”

Section: International Migration and State Policies: Theoretical Consmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subsidizing Migration? Mexican Agricultural Policies and Migration to the United States

Cortina¹

2014

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Migration theories often ignore the role that states play in stimulating migration through public assistance policies. Using the case of Mexico, this article explores the role of the state as a migrantproducing actor by examining the relationship between migration and social assistance policies in the form of monetary cash transfers. It argues that direct, unconditional cash transfers, like those provided by agricultural programs such as Procampo, rather than providing the incentives needed to retain individuals in their home country, may instead be providing the resources needed to migrate, particularly if the amount of the transfer is insufficient to spur investment. Instead of discouraging migration by enhancing economic opportunities and reducing poverty, such policies can actually make it easier and more appealing for its beneficiaries to migrate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: International Migration and State Policies: Theoretical Consmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subsidizing Migration? Mexican Agricultural Policies and Migration to the United States

Cortina¹

2014

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the first domain (economic opportunities and decent work), we found evidence clusters for the intervention categories relating to human capital strengthening (n = 41) and active labor market policies (n = 16). Human capital strengthening interventions are predominantly represented by cash transfer schemes-for example, large universal programs such as Mexico's PROGRESA (Angelucci 2005;Stecklov et al 2005;Tirado-Alcaraz 2014;Araujo and Macours 2021), other targeted cash transfers offered seasonally (Sibson 2020), or humanitarian cash transfers (Özler et al 2021).…”

Section: Evidence Gaps Exist Within Many Intervention Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land-use change and forestry programmes in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence gap map update

Parrao

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

About 3ieThe International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) develops evidence on how to effectively transform the lives of the poor in low-and middle-income countries. Established in 2008, we offer comprehensive support and a diversity of approaches to achieve development goals by producing, synthesizing and promoting the uptake of impact evaluation evidence. We work closely with governments, foundations, NGOs, development institutions and research organizations to address their decision-making needs. With offices in Washington DC, New Delhi and London and a global network of leading researchers, we offer deep expertise across our extensive menu of evaluation services.3ie evidence gap maps 3ie evidence gap maps are thematic collections of information about impact evaluations or systematic reviews that measure the effects of international development policies and programs. The maps provide a visual display of completed and ongoing systematic reviews and impact evaluations in a sector or subsector, structured around a framework of interventions and outcomes.The evidence gap map reports provide all the supporting documentation for the maps, including the background information for the theme of the map, the methods and results, protocols, and the analysis of results. About this evidence gap mapThis report presents the findings for a systematic search to identify and map the evidence base of impact evaluations and systematic reviews of interventions that aim to address the root causes of irregular migration in low-and middle-income countries. The EGM was developed by 3ie with funding from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) -Guatemala through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded project, Addressing the Root Causes of Irregular Migration in Guatemala.

show abstract

“…The empirical literature so far only consists of the analyses that use income shocks generated by conditional cash transfers to answer this question. For example, Stecklov et al (2005) and Angelucci (2015) have tested the theory by studying the impact of a Mexican conditional cash transfer program ( Progresa ) on migration. Their conclusions are conflicting — while Stecklov et al (2005) found that Progresa reduced migration to the United States, Angelucci (2015) found that the transfer actually increased migration (both total and labor).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liquidity Constraints and Migration: Evidence from Indonesia

Tiwari

Winters

2018

International Migration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although liquidity constraints have been seen as both a factor limiting individuals from migrating and a motivation for households to send a migrant, the consequences of relaxing liquidity constraints on migration behavior have not been adequately explored due to data limitations. In this study, we take advantage of an unusual policy, Bantuan Langsung Tunai — a national-level unconditional cash transfer program targeted toward the poorest households in Indonesia — to empirically assess the impact of increased liquidity on the migration behavior of poor Indonesian households. With a highly mobile population and a long history of circular migration, Indonesia is an ideal space to study migration. Using panel data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey, the results demonstrate that a positive liquidity shock increases the probability of migration among low-asset households, among households with a migration history, and, most significantly, among low-asset households with a migration history.

show abstract

Aid Programs' Unintended Effects: The Case of Progresa and Migration

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Subsidizing Migration? Mexican Agricultural Policies and Migration to the United States

Subsidizing Migration? Mexican Agricultural Policies and Migration to the United States

Land-use change and forestry programmes in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence gap map update

Liquidity Constraints and Migration: Evidence from Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About