Violence and International Emigration in Mexico

Liliana Meza González, Ph.D.Michael Feil (Colonel retired)

Content of the paper

• Introduction• Insecurity and migration trends• Literature review• Theoretical framework• Empirical analysis• Concluding remarks

Introduction

• The main reason behind Mexico-US migration is either employment, the search of a job or family reunification.

• People fleeing Mexico for security reasons can be a new phenomenon that is taking place while total flows are decreasing, which seems paradoxical.

• Environments of insecurity (EOI) have been behind large flows of people moving to safer places.

• Migration from Mexico to the US explained by security reasons can be changing the profile of migrants in some destinations.

• This paper shows a small correlation between violence and emigration to the US using data from Mexican northern border municipalities.

• The analysis at a household level shows a negative correlation between violence and international emigration.

Migration trends

Source: CONAPO estimates based on CONAPO, INM, SRE, STPS, and COLEF, Encuesta sobre Migración en la Frontera Norte de México (EMIF NORTE), 2002 - 2010.

Internal and international migration explained by public insecurity

Insecurity trends

Source: NationMaster crime rates. www.nationmaster.com

Homicides per 100,000 inhabitants

Source: Mexican Federal Government, INEGI.

Drug related murders by state, 2011

Literature review

According to Pérez (2003), widespread insecurity and the public demand for quick solutions often justify military style responses to violence in ways that undermine the rule of law and promote further criminal behavior.

The consequences of crime have come to influence the economic development of countries in Latin America (Ayres, 1998).

Violence not only engulfs poor population but also affects the wealthy and powerful, many of whom contract private security or barricade themselves in gated communities (Caldeira, 2000).

Violence could be considered the central and defining problem in contemporary Latin America, and for many people in the region leaving their country and migrating to the US has become one means of escape.

Literature review• Morrison (1993) established a threshold effect of violence such that low levels

of violence had no effect on internal migration in Guatemala, but violence reaching a certain threshold level lead people to migrate.

• Bohra-Mishra and Massey (2011) find that violence has a non-linear effect on migration because low to moderate levels of violence reduce the odds of movement, while at high levels of violence, the odds of movement increase.

• Elías Alvarado and Massey (2010) study the relationship between violence and international migration in 4 Latinamerican countries. They state that rising violence has reduced the likelihood of emigration from Mexico, Costa Rica and Guatemala. They say that only in Nicaragua, lethal violence seems positively correlated with out-migration.

• Shellman and Stewart (2007) predict forced international migration from Haiti by predicting civil violence, poor economic conditions and foreign interventions.

• Stanley (1987) uses time-series analysis to conclude that political violence was an important motivation of Salvadorans who migrated to the US since the beggining of 1979. He drops controls for economic factors, which may exaggerate the effect of insecurity on international emigration.

Theeoretical framework

• Migration decisions from developing countries are typically made by families, not individuals, and families migrate not only to maximize earnings but also to minimize risks (Stark, 1985).

• Economic conditions in developing countries are volatile, and families face serious risks to their well-being from many sources –natural disasters, political upheavals or economic recessions among others (Massey, 1994).

• The literature on forced migration generally distinguishes between three kinds of determinants of movements: root causes, proximate conditions and intervening factors (Bohra-Mishra and Massey, 2011).

– Root causes.- Poverty, along with unemployment and low wages, yields economic hardships that prompt people to look elsewhere for material sustenance or advancement.

– Proximate conditions.- The proximate cause of migration of central interest here is the intensity of violence in municipality i

– Intervening factors.- The most important intervening factor influencing the migration decision are the social ties that migrants constitute with other migrants from their families or a close circle of friends.

Empirical analysis. National data

Table 3

National

Sociodemographic characteristics of municipalities, by migration intensity

Migration Intensity*/

Very high high medium low very low null

Homicide rate (per 10,000 inhabitants) 1.98 3.36 4.00 5.20 2.27 0.33

Gini coefficient (income) 2005 0.423 0.416 0.414 0.419 0.411 0.359

Marginality Index 0.163 0.095 0.003 -0.187 0.089 0.799

Source: Own calculations based on INEGI data.

Empirical analysis. National data Table 5Migration variables and homicide rates at a national level Homicide rate*/ High Medium Low

Percentage of dwellings receiving remittances

average 8.12 9.37 6.11

standard dev 6.77 7.63 7.19

Percentage of dwellings with emigrants to the US

average 2.75 4.26 3.89

standard dev 2.28 4.48 4.22

Percentage of dwellings with circular migrants

average 1.05 1.42 1.19

standard dev 1.01 1.22 1.24

Percentage of dwellings with return migrants

average 3.86 4.51 3.33

standard dev 2.69 2.91 3.07

*/ Homicide rates below 5 are considered low; between 5 and 10, medium and above 10, high.Source: Own calculations based on INEGI and CONAPO data.

Estimations

Empirical analysis- National data Table 6Estimation 1: Municipal level model with National dataDependent variable: Percentage of dwellings receiving remmittances

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Intercept 6.300** 1.531** 2.883** (39.951) (11.089) (6.684) Rate of deaths related to organized crime 1/ 0.067** 0.034** 0.033** (3.274) (2.456) (2.421) Rate of deaths related to OC squared 0.000** 0.000 0.000 (-2.355) (-0.928) (-1.154) Social network in the US 2/ -- 0.804** 0.735** -- (54.239) (48.675)

Percentage of population earning up to 2 min wage -- -- 0.082** -- -- (13.405) Percentage of dwellings overcrowded -- -- -0.134** -- -- (-13.347)R squared 0.005 0.549 0.587F statistic 5.627 988.691 692.552Sig. F 0.004 0.000 0.000N 2455 2442 24421/ Defined as deaths in the 2006-2011 period due to aggressions or executions and in clashes.2/ Percentage of dwellings with emigrants in the US between 1995 and 2000.t statistics in perenthesis.Source: Own calculations.

Empirical analysis – National dataTable 7Estimation 2: Municipal level model with National DataDependent variable: Percentage of dwellings with emigrants to the US

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Intercept 3.958** 1.841** -1.569** (44.269) (19.382) (-6.637) Rate of deaths related to Organized Crime 1/ -0.046** -0.061** -0.026** (-3.983) (-6.443) (-2.870) Rate of deaths related to OC squared 0.000** 0.000** 0.000** (-2.375) (-4.578) (2.227) Social network in the US 2/ -- 0.357** 0.367** -- (35.011) (37.600) Percentage of population earning up to 2 min wage -- -- 0.050** -- -- (13.877) Percentage of indigenous population -- -- 0.046** -- -- (5.234) R squared 0.008 0.340 0.418F statistic 9.538 418.306 349.603Sig. F 0.000 0.000 0.000N 2455 2442 24421/ Defined as deaths in the 2006-2011 period due to aggressions or executions and in clashes.2/ Percentage of dwellings with emigrants in the US between 1995 and 2000.t statistics in perenthesis.Source: Own calculations.

Empirical analysis- National dataTable 8Estimation 3: Municipal level model with National dataDependent variable: Percentage of dwellings with circular migrants

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Intercept 1.216** 0.954** 0.908** (45.769) (35.155) (11.144) Rate of deaths related to Organized Crime 1/ -0.005 -0.013** -0.012** (-1.434) (-3.945) (-3.619) Rate of deaths related to OC squared 0.000 0.000* 0.000* (0.051) (1.906) (1.678) Social network in the US 2/ -- 0.227** 0.225** -- (21.765) (21.434) Percentage of population earning up to 2 min wage -- -- 0.002 -- -- (1.303) Percentage of dwellings without piped water -- -- -0.004** -- -- (-2.807) R squared 0.003 0.165 0.168F statistic 3.294 160.541 98.166Sig. F 0.037 0.000 0.000N 2455 2442 24421/ Defined as deaths in the 2006-2011 period due to aggressions or executions and in clashes.2/ Percentage of dwellings with circular migrants in the US between 1995 and 2000.t statistics in perenthesis.Source: Own calculations.

Empirical analysis- Border municipalities dataTable 12Estimation 1: Border Municipalities Data

Dependent variable: Percentage of dwellings receiving remittances

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Intercept 4.324** 1.646** 5.327** (15.390) (6.164) (7.096) Rate of deaths related to Organized Crime 1/ 0.021** 0.016** 0.011** (2.837) (2.949) (2.205) Social network in the US 2/ -- 0.734** 0.569** -- (15.602) (11.463)

Percentage of population earning up to 2 min wage -- -- 0.042** -- -- (3.889) Percentage of dwellings overcrowded -- -- -0.146** -- -- (-6.983) R squared 0.029 0.486 0.567F statistic 8.049 129.303 88.614Sig. F 0.005 0.000 0.000N 275 275 2751/ Defined as deaths in the 2006-2011 period due to aggressions or executions and in clashes per every 10,000 inh.2/ Percentage of dwellings with emigrants in the US between 1995 and 2000.t statistics in perenthesis.Source: Own calculations.

Empirical analysis- Border municipalities data Table 13Estimation 2: Border Municipalities Data

Dependent variable: Percentage of dwellings with emigrants to the US

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Intercept 1.445** 0.660** 0.294* (16.922) (6.516) (1.674) Rate of deaths related to Organized Crime 1/ 0.001 0.004** 0.004** (0.485) (2.212) (2.059) Social network in the US 2/ -- 1.077** 1.003** -- (10.940) (9.982) Percentage of population earning up to 2 min wage -- -- 0.010** -- -- (2.689) Percentage of indigenous population -- -- -0.141** -- -- (-1.966) R squared 0.001 0.305 0.327F statistic 0.235 60.011 32.958Sig. F 0.628 0.000 0.000N 275 275 2751/ Defined as deaths in the 2006-2011 period due to aggressions or executions and in clashes per every 10,000 inh.2/ Percentage of dwellings with circular migrants between 2005 and 2010.t statistics in perenthesis.Source: Own calculations.

Empirical analysis- Border municipalities data

Empirical Analysis – Household level dataTable 15. Logit regression. Probability of having a migrant in the US (household level estimation)

National data Border municipalities data

Rate of deaths related to organized crime -0.002** -0.001 (-4.48) (-1.24)

Percentage of population of the municipality in dwellings with a migrant in the US 0.146** 0.382** (234.40) (42.38)Percentage of illiterate population in municipality 0.018** 0.034** (30.59) (6.31)Percentage if indigenous population in municipality -0.022** -0.069** (-44.56) (-2.47)

Percentage of population of the municipality in dwellings without piped water 0.001** -0.005** (6.18) (-3.61)

Percentage of population of the municipality in overcrowded dwellings 0.003** -0.002 (7.88) (-1.47)Light meter in dwelling 0.266** 0.279** (26.43) (5.23)Gas stove in dwelling 0.432** 0.409** (45.71) (5.58)Kitchen in dwelling 0.223** 0.241** (22.98) (4.11)Nuclear household -0.078** -0.164** (-11.46) (-6.46)Own car in dwelling 0.328** 0.325** (46.53) (11.61)Telephone in dwelling 0.511** 0.415** (72.27) (16.25)Male head of household -0.621** -0.399** (-92.06) (-14.48)Head of household schooling level -0.169** -0.021** (-64.69) (-2.26)Age of head of household -0.005** 0.000 (-20.64) (0.01)Presence of children younger than 5 0.083** 0.039** (20.48) (2.27)Presence of adults 65 and older -0.407** -0.356** (-53.62) (-13.74)Constant -3.692** -5.106** (-133.36) (-44.57) Log likelihood -460043.52 -35461.92LR chi 2 (17) 109708.31 3352.40Prob > chi2 0.000 0.000Number of observations 2803977 341773 Pseudo R2 0.1065 0.0451 Source: Own calculations.

Concluding remarks

• Theory and common sense predict a positive relationship between violence and international migration, but it is not always the case.

• Low violence intensity can even decrease migration probabilities.• Violence and International migration seem to have a non-linear

relationship in the Mexican case, but this is not confirmed in the regression analysis.

• Data at a municipality level show a positive correlation between violence and remmittances, but a negative correlation between violence and the presence of migrants in dwellings (either permanent or circular).

• When the analysis is performed using only data from northern border municipalities, violence appears positively correlated both with remmittances and permanent migration, but the effect is too small.

• The household level analysis suggests a negative correlation between violence and international migration.

Concluding remarks• The high violence intensity in the northern Mexican states seems to be

promoting international emigration, according to the municipality level data analysis.

• For the rest of the country, evidence suggests that violence is not a force behind migration to the US, and the household level analysis even indicates that migration has dropped due to moderate levels of public insecurity.

• Security measures should be implemented to protect the population in the most violent states of the country, which happen to be in the northern part of the territory.

• People affected by violence and that can migrate to the US come from higher education or income level groups, so the receiving communities can be benefited by the presence of positively selected migrants.

• The US authorities have to decide if they receive positively selected migrants coming from northern states, or if they support Mexico in its efforts to protect people affected by public insecurity, so they don´t leave the country.