Employment and Irregular Migration: Evidence from Two Randomized Controlled Trials in Egypt

We evaluate the effects of two interventions: (i) a cash-for-work intervention in which beneficiaries are paid to provide community services related to health, environment, adult literacy and nurseries, for an expected duration of 15 to 18 months on average; and (ii) a training and employment support intervention in which beneficiaries are provided with training packages and different services (financial services, job search aid, wage subsidies, etc.) designed to facilitate access to wage- and self-employment.

Both interventions are targeting unemployed youth (aged 18-29, in some cases up to 35) in the governorates with the highest outflows of irregular migrants (as identified by the Egyptian National Coordinating Committee for Preventing and Combating Illegal migration and human trafficking or NCCPIM-TIP).

While the cash-for-work intervention is focused on the rapid creation of temporary jobs for income, the training and employment support intervention aims to facilitate young people’s transition into more sustainable wage- and self-employment.

Both interventions are implemented as local sub-projects by NGOs. The training and employment support intervention also involves employers' federations and business associations.

The ex-ante theory of change is as follows:
- The interventions have a direct impact on participants by increasing their employment and employability. As a result, participants see that their current situation improves, and may also expect that their future situation will improve, which can in turn affect their intentions and attitudes toward migration. Effects on migration depend on whether participants are able to meet their aspirations locally, and how the interventions affect migration constraints. Participants will disregard migration – especially irregular migration – if they find (or do expect to find) opportunities that are in line with their aspirations and if the program does not relax migration constraints. In contrast, they will favor migration – especially irregular migration – if they do not find (or do not expect to find) opportunities that are in line with their aspirations or if the program relaxes migration constraints.
- The interventions also have an indirect effect on relatives: the household decision-maker, other household members, children, and friends. Different channels might be at play: (i) Intra-household dynamics: the participant's position in the household improves, and household decisions regarding the migration of other household members are now more in line with his/her preferences; (ii) Opportunity cost: the participant (or household decision-maker) decides there is no need to migrate because of improved living conditions; (iii) Financial constraints: the participant (or household decision-maker) uses his/her increased income to finance the migration costs of friends or other household members; (iv) Peer effects: the participant affects the perception of his/her relatives about what is possible to achieve locally which might in turn affect their migration outcomes.

In Egypt, women typically do not migrate to Europe irregularly, and migrate much less in general (e.g., to the Gulf or to urban areas). Women constitute about 80% of the sample in the cash-for-work intervention and 60% of the sample in the training and employment support intervention. To take this into account, we will present results separately for men and women. In addition, the focus should be different depending on the gender of the participant. For men, we are particularly interested in the direct effects of the program on their migration decisions and those of their peers (friends). For women, we are particularly interested in the indirect effects of the program on their relatives (children, household decision maker, and other household members).

2021-01-01

2023-12-31

A. Migration intentions: intention to leave this place; intentions to migrate to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe, to Europe irregularly.
B. Actual migration: migration to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe, to Europe irregularly.
C. Irregular migration preparations and attempts: preparations to migrate irregularly to Europe; steps taken towards irregular migration to Europe; attempted to migrate irregularly to Europe.

All outcomes will be measured using survey data on the applicant.

Outcomes in domain A (migration intentions) will be dummy variables equal to one if the individual reports an intention to migrate. We will use the following questions:
- Intentions to leave this place: “Are you willing to leave this place?”
- Intentions to migrate to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe: “If you had the opportunity, would you like to move to [destination]?”
- Intentions to migrate to Europe irregularly: “Would you consider moving to Europe even if you don’t have the official papers that allow you to move?”

Outcomes in domain B (actual migration) will be dummy variables equal to one if the individual is identified as a migrant. Migrants (and their destinations) will be identified using proxy respondents as well as phone surveys and intensive tracking exercises. First, when an individual cannot be interviewed in her village, enumerators will ask proxy respondents (i.e., relatives registered at baseline, neighbors, and other knowledgeable persons in the village) basic questions on the location of the targeted individual. Second, we will cross-check the location reported by proxy respondents by attempting to reach the targeted individual through phone calls and intensive tracking. In case of dissonant reports, we will favor the information reported by the targeted individual.

Outcomes in domain C (irregular migration preparations) will be defined as follow:
- Plans to migrate irregularly to Europe: “I am preparing to migrate to Europe without the official papers” (measured using a direct question, a double list experiment, and an “urne” which collects responses on anonymous paper sheets with different colors depending on the treatment status).
- Steps taken towards irregular migration to Europe will be a count variable defined as in Bah et al. (2022) over the past two years.
- Attempted to migrate irregularly to Europe will be a dummy variable equal to one if the respondent report that she has attempted to migrate to Europe in the past two years and did not use the plane.

D. Migration likelihood and migration constraints: migration likelihood to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe; self-reported prevalence of eight migration constraints (lack of money, lack of information, lack of the required documents, lack of valuable skills, lack of contact at the destination, afraid to move, cannot take the risk, attachment to home, nothing).
E. Labor force participation: employment; hours worked; earnings; occupation satisfaction; skill mismatch.
F. Income aspirations in one year and in ten years.
G. Expectations (expected probability of finding a job; expected earnings; expected life satisfaction) in the village, in Cairo/big city, in the Gulf, in Europe.
H. Preferences regarding fertility and the migration of children and other household members (asked for different destinations: Cairo/big city, the Gulf, Europe, Europe irregularly).
I. Migration of other household members: intentions to leave this place; intentions to migrate to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe, to Europe irregularly; preparations to migrate irregularly to Europe; actual migration to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe, to Europe irregularly.
J. Household decision-maker’s preferences regarding fertility and migration to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe, to Europe irregularly.
K. Friends’ intentions to migrate and actual migration to Cairo/big city, to the Gulf, to Europe, to Europe irregularly.

Outcomes in domains D to G are potential mechanisms for the observed impacts on the primary outcomes. Outcomes in domains H to K capture the indirect effects of the intervention on the relatives.

Outcomes in domains D to I will be measured using data from the applicant survey.

Domain D (migration likelihood and migration constraints):
- Migration likelihood: “How likely are you to move to [destination] in the next five years?” [measured using a Likert scale ranging from “very unlikely” (1) to “very likely” (5)]
- Self-reported prevalence of eight migration constraints: “I will mention a few reasons that often prevent people from migrating to a different place or country. For each reason, please tell me if this reason applies to you: (1) I lack the money to finance the moving costs (transportation, accommodation, food); (2) I lack the information that would allow me to move (how to get the required papers, jobs, salaries, housing); (3) I lack the required documents that would allow me to move; (4) I lack the skills that would allow me to find a good job at destination; (5) I lack contacts at the destination who could help me when I arrive; (6) I am afraid to move; (7) I can’t afford to take the risk; (8) I am too attached to this village; (9) Nothing prevents me from migrating.”

Domain E (labor force participation):
- Employment will be measured using both contemporary employment and a retrospective calendar on monthly employment over the past two years (outcomes will be dummy variables equal to one if the respondent has worked).
- Hours worked: weekly number of hours spent working in primary IGA, secondary IGA, and in family businesses.
- Earnings: monthly earnings from the primary IGA, from the secondary IGA, and from working in the family business.
- Occupation satisfaction: “On a scale from 0 to 10, how much do you like your occupation?”
- Skill mismatch: “Does your occupation match your knowledge and skills?”

Domain F (income aspirations):
- “What are the monthly earnings you would like to have in 1 year?”
- “What are the monthly earnings you would like to have in 10 years?”

Domain G (expectations):
- Expected probability of finding a job: “What do you think is the percentage of chance you will get your aspired job one day?”; “If you stay in your village, what do you think is the percentage of chance you will find a job in the next 12 months?”; “What do you think is the percentage of chance you will find a job in the next 12 months in [destination]?”
- Expected earnings: “What are the monthly earnings you think you will make in 1 year?”; “What are the monthly earnings you think you will make in 10 years?”; “If you stay in your village, what are the monthly earnings you think you will make in 1 year?”; “If you move to [destination], what are the monthly earnings you think you will make in 1 year?”
- Expected life satisfaction: “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. On which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time?”; “On which step do you think you will stand about 1 year from now?”; “On which step do you think you will stand about 10 years from now?”; “On which step do you think you will stand if you migrated to [destination]?”

Domain H (preferences regarding fertility and the migration of their children and other household members):
- Preferences regarding fertility: [if the applicant has children] “If you could go back to the time you did not have any children and could choose exactly the number of children to have in your whole life, how many would that be?”; [if the applicant has no children] “If you could choose exactly the number of children to have in your whole life, how many would that be?”; “How many of these children would you like to be boys, how many would you like to be girls and for how many would it not matter if it’s a boy or a girl?”
- Preferences regarding the migration of their children: “Now, I will ask you questions about your children and what you want for them when they grow up. If you don't have children, the questions will refer to the children you might have in the future. In the future, if one of your [sons/daughters] had the opportunity, would you be favorable to [him/her] moving to [destination]?” [asked separately for sons and daughters]
- Preferences regarding the migration of other household members (if age>14): “If ${roster_name} had an opportunity to leave this place (i.e., migrate to another location), would you be favorable to it?” If yes… “Where would you prefer that ${roster_name} go?” If no… “If s/he decided to leave this place despite your opinion, where would you prefer him to go?”

Domain I (migration of other household members):
- Intentions to leave this place and destination: “To the best of your knowledge, is ${roster_name} willing to leave this place?”, if yes… “Where ${roster_name} wants to go?”
- Other household members plan to migrate irregularly to Europe: “Another household member is preparing to migrate to Europe without the official papers” (measured using a direct question, a double list experiment, and an “urne” which collects responses on anonymous paper sheets with different colors depending on the treatment).
- Actual migration and destination of other household members will be measured information about roster members who are reported as having left the household in the last 24 months and their current location.

Outcomes in domain J (household decision-maker’s preferences regarding fertility and migration) will be measured using data from the decision-maker survey. Outcomes will be equivalent to those in domain H.

Outcomes in domain K (friends’ intentions to migrate and actual migration) will be measured using data from the friend survey. Outcomes will be equivalent to those in domains A and B.

Other outcomes that will be analyzed should be seen as exploratory.

Both evaluations rely on an over-subscription design. An individual can apply to only one of the interventions, and, after filling out a short questionnaire with the help of the local NGO (baseline data), she is randomized into treatment or control.

This study is registered in December 2022 (prior to the rollout of the first endline and to any analyses of a short midline survey conducted over the phone for individuals in the cash-for-work intervention).

Done in office by computer using STATA

Individual level randomization

No

Cash-for-work: 90 projects.
Training and employment support: 34 projects.
The actual number of projects might be smaller if projects get canceled.

Cash-for-work: 6,955 individuals at the time of registration. Training and employment support: 4,778 individuals at the time of registration. Follow-up data will be collected by a professional survey firm under the guidance of the research team. The actual number of observations will depend on the number of projects that get canceled and on our ability to track and find respondents included in the experiment. Because the baseline data are collected by local NGO implementing each project, with limited oversight from the research team (due to Covid and the large number of NGOs), we anticipate potential issues to track participants, especially for some projects. The actual number of observations might also be smaller in the case of fake/unknown applicants.

Cash-for-work: 4,270 Treatment, 2,685 Control.
Training and employment support: 2,433 Treatment, 2,345 Control.