Labor Migration as a Major Source of Employment and Development
larger than the share of nonmigrants engaged in self-employment—about 50 percent (figure 1.10, panel a). The higher likelihood of return migrants to be self-employed also holds when taking into consideration differences in sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, education, region of birth), and it is in line with results found in different contexts (Wahba and Zenou 2012; Wahba 2015; Batista et al. 2017). In many instances, this result has been used as suggestive evidence of migration promoting entrepreneurship, and in some cases, a causal link between temporary migration and entrepreneurship has been established (Batista et al. 2017, Bossavie et al. 2021; Yang 2006, 2008; Khanna et al. 2022). However, self-employment might be either returnees’ choice or the consequence of limited employment opportunities as employees (the “parking lot” hypothesis of entrepreneurship of Harris and Todaro 1970). In the Kyrgyz Republic, Brück, Mahé, and Naudé (2018) p rovide evidence that self-employment among return migrants is often a temporary occupational choice, used until a better employment opportunity emerges. Also, they find that those migrants who were self-employed before migration were less likely to be so upon return, so migration might not be a financial tool that credit-constrained entrepreneurial workers use to save money for their entrepreneurial endeavors. In terms of sectors and occupation of employment, while many migrants change sectors during the migration experience, they switch back to their old sectors upon return to the Kyrgyz Republic—for example, 44 percent of returnees work in agriculture (figure 1.10, panel b). In the Kyrgyz Republic, returnees’ occupational profile also matches very closely their premigration experience rather than their occupations abroad, with a slightly lower share for male agricultural workers while higher for females. Female returnees are also significantly more likely to be technicians than before migration. In terms of earnings, migrants obtain similar wages than nonmigrants upon return to the Kyrgyz Republic, and there are no clear returns to past migration as in other countries (figure 1.12).4 Given the small sample size of returnees in the migration module of the 2015 Kyrgyz Integrated Household Survey when dividing them by education levels, the wage estimates are somewhat imprecise. If anything, returnees earn slightly lower wages in the mid-education level (which is the vast majority of the migrant population), and higher for the lowest and highest educated. After controlling for other personal characteristics like gender, age, or oblast of residence, returnees do not earn wages that are significantly different from those of nonmigrants. The combined analysis of the labor market shows that the returns to work experience abroad are more apparent in the extensive margin—larger employment rates—than in the intensive margin—wage levels.
IMPACT OF MIGRATION AND REMITTANCES ON THE HOME ECONOMY AND MIGRANT HOUSEHOLDS The impact of emigration on a sending country varies depending on numerous factors and the time frame of analysis. Some of the main factors shaping the overall impact of emigration include the demographic profile of the country, the educational profile of migrants, the duration of migration and likelihood of return, links with the diaspora, the likelihood of remitting, and the human capital and financial accumulation during the migration period.5
|
21
