Track your Manuscript
Enter Correct Manuscript Reference Number:
Get Details
Top Editors

Dr. Nanjappaiah H. M.
Assoc. Prof. Dept. of Pharmacology BLDEA’s SSM College of Pharmacy & Research Centre Vijayapur – 586103, Karnataka, India

Dr. Shek Saleem Babu
English Language and Literature, English Language Teaching, and Poetry, IIIT, RGUKT, Nuzvid, Krishna Dt. AP, India

Dinh Tran Ngoc Huy
Bank for Investment and Development of VietNam (BIDV)

Dr. Abd El-Aleem Saad Soliman Desoky
Professor Assistant of Agricultural Zoology, Plant Protection Department Faculty of Agriculture, Sohag University - Egypt

Prof. Dr. Elsayed Ahmed Ahmed Elnashar, Ph.D.
Full-Professor of Textiles &Apparel, Faculty of Specific Education, Kaferelsheikh, University, Egypt
Top Reviewers

Dr. Shabnum Musaddiq
Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India, 524003

Dr. Biman Kumar Panigrahi
Associate professor, Seemanta Instt. of Pharma. Scs., Jharpokharia, Odisha, 757086, India

Efanga, Udeme Okon
Finance, Accounting and Economics, niversity of Calabar, Nigeria

Aransi Waliyi Olayemi
Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Why Us
Open Access
Peer-reviewed
Rapid publication
Lifetime hosting
Free indexing service
Free promotion service
More citations
Search engine friendly
Go Back       Himalayan Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies | Volume:3 Volume:4 | July 20, 2022
69 Downloads201 Views

DOI : 10.47310/Hjhcs.2022.v03i04.001       Download PDF       HTML       XML

Topic: The Impact of International Migrant Workers on Household Income and Expenditure


Bounthom SISOUMANG*, Khampha HOMSOMBAT, Inpaeng SAYVAYA, Saengchanh KHOUN-APHAY, Sovat KHAMPHOUVANH, Athikone BOUPHANOUVONG

From Champasak Province, Lao PDR, to Thailand: a case study of migrant workers originating in Champasak and Phonthong Districts


*Corresponding Author

Bounthom SISOUMANG


Article History

Received: 30.06.2022

Accepted: 10.07.2022

Published: 20.07.2022


Abstract: International migration and remittances are the most important factors affecting economic development and poverty reduction because remittances to hometowns become the main source of capital for local economic activities, in order to generate income and smooth consumption. On the other hand, this capital is also for the household’s direct consumption, improving the living conditions of families, as well as favourably impacting on poverty reduction in the least developed countries. This study of the impact of migration from Champasak province, Lao PDR to the Kingdom of Thailand aims to 1) identify and investigate the causes of worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand, and 2) consider the impact of such worker migration on Lao household income and expenditure in households where migrant workers remit monies to families in Champasak and Phonthong Districts. This study consisted of 366 households including 248 migration households and 118 non-migration households, selected through stratified random sampling. Household heads responded to questionnaires November to December, 2014. The result shows the reasons for Lao migration worker to the Kingdom of Thailand were: unemployment, higher wage in Thailand, seeking new experiences and household’s lack of basic need. Migration to the Kingdom of Thailand had positive effects on the house hold incomes. This research found that Lao worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand resulted in positive effect on household incomes in Champasak District with remittances causing incomes to increase 59.12 percent: however, expenditure was negatively impacted with level of significance at 0.05. The effect on expenditure in Phonthong District was positive. It takes 33.88 percentages with level of significance at 0.1. In summary, research results indicate that international worker migration and consequent remittances can increase household incomes while reducing poverty in rural areas. Hence it seems that, under Lao labour laws, a public sector policy should promote the practical skills and legal worker migration should be a taken into consideration.


Keywords: Migrant Workers, Income and Expenditure.


INTRODUCTION

As we know, poverty is the main issue of most developing countries throughout the world. Topics on hunger, threat, lack of basic need (clothes, televisions, motorbikes), and lack of permanent housing are being discussed across the world. Nowadays nearly 1.8 billion people in Asia’s citizens live on less than 2$ a day (Asian Development Bank, 2011).


International migration is one of the most important factors affecting economic relations between developed and developing countries in the 21st century. At the start of the century, it was estimated that about 175 million people roughly 3% of the world population lived and worked outside the country of their birth (Richard, Adams, and John, 2005 cite in United Nations, 2002).


The impact of international migration and remittances on poverty in the developing world constructing and analyzing a new data set on international migration, remittances, inequality, and poverty from 71 developing countries. The results show that both international migration and remittances significantly reduce the level, depth, and severity of poverty in the developing world (Richard, Adams, and John, 2005).


According to the report from the department of Labour and Social Welfare in Champasak province, 2012-2013 found that the labour migration trend to increase. Especially in Kingdom of Thailand from 27,116 people year 2009 to 33,691 people year 2012.


Table 1: Migration worker in Champasak province, 2011 - 2012

No

District

Number of migration worker

Total

Woman

1

Phonethong

7,046

3,555

2

Champasak

6,422

3,628

3

Soukhuma

3,728

2,255

4

Khong

3,720

1,887

5

Mounlapamok

4,105

2,103

6

Sanasomboun

3,566

2,052

7

Pakse

2,903

1,210

8

Pathumphone

1,671

852

9

Paksong

530

118

10

Bachiang

675

322


Total

33,691

17,660

Source: Department of Labour and Social Welfare in Champasak province, 2012-2013


Table 1 shows the data of migration worker in ten districts of Champasak province who work in the Kingdom of Thailand, Phonethong district is higher than other districts with the number of 7,046 people and Champasak district with the number of 6,422 people.


This study selected two districts Phonethong and Champasak district with ten villages. In Phonethong district there are Donsat, Nongtenoi, Dontabeng, Phon, and Dongnachan, in Champasak district there are Dontalat, Houaynganua, Houayngantay, Donhe, and Thangkhop. This two districts show the higher number of migration than other district. This study aims to 1) Identify and investigate the causes of worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand; 2) Consider the impact of such worker migration on Lao household income and expenditure in households where migrant workers remit monies to families in Champasak and Phonthong Districts.


LITERATURE REVIEWS

Richmond Tiemoko, 2003 argues that families play an important role in return migration, remittances, and aspects of human, social and financial capital acquisition and investment. Using Cerases typology of return migration, the analysis seeks to discriminate between migrants whose return decisions were affected by their families considered as ‘return of conservatism’, and those who made individual return decisions considered as ‘return of innovation’. The findings reveal that the relationship between the type of return (and extent of family involvement in this decision), and the extent of financial, human and social capital transfers, varies between countries and across groups of migrants.


The migrant’s currency against the Philippine peso leads to increases in household remittance receipts, and reductions in poverty in migrants’ origin households (Dean Yang and Claudia Martinez, 2005).


Albert Park and Dewen Wang, 2010 examines how migration influences measurements of urban poverty and inequality in China, and also compares how other indicators of well-being differ for migrants and local residents. The research found that the income poverty rate of migrant households is 1.5 times that of local resident households, we find relatively small differences in the poverty rates of migrants and local residents.

Migration and return can be seen as a mechanism for providing capital for the development of small enterprises, particularly amongst poorer and less-skilled migrants. This paper uses results from a survey of international return migrants to Ghana undertaken in 2001 to explore the extent to which the processes of migration and return have contributed to development and poverty alleviation through the promotion of small businesses and examines the role of acquisition of financial, human and social capital whilst abroad in contributing to enterprise development and it also considers the extent to which public policy incentives and constraints have affected the promotion of small enterprises amongst returning migrants, and suggests measures that could enhance this process (Richard Black et al, 2003).


From literature reviews, the migration worker and remittance can be increasing income and smooth consumption for the poor people living in least developing country. In Lao lack of research in migration and remittance, especially in Champasak province that shares the border with Kingdom of Thailand.

METHODOLOGY

Champasak Province is located in the South-West of Lao PDR bordering Thailand and Cambodia. The Province benefits from the newly established East-West Corridor between Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam in respect to transport linkages to growing markets. The Mekong River stretches from the north to the south of the Province and contributes strongly to the potentials of economic development particularly in agri-business and tour-ism1.


Sampling Size

According to the source of data from the Department of Labour and Social Welfare 2013 found that the migration workers from Phonethong and Champasak district are higher than other districts, in 3,416 households include migration worker 2,362 households and non-migration worker 1,054 households.

The sample size for this study is 366 households with 248 migration worker and 118 households non-migration. Calculated by Taro Yamane (1976)

n= sampling size

N= total households

e= error term, e=0.05


Using stratified random sampling method and divided in two groups: the first group is migration worker households and second group is non-migration worker households that shows in table 2.


Table 2: The sample size

Name of district

Name of village

Population

Sample size



Migration worker households

Non-migration worker households

Total

Migration worker households

Non-migration worker households

Total



Champasak

Dontalat

450

267

717

46

29

75

Houaynganua

358

242

600

39

25

64

Houayngantay

287

196

483

30

22

52

Donhe

118

199

317

12

21

33

Thangkhop

282

48

330

30

6

36



Phonethong

Donsat

232

10

242

24

2

26

Nongtenoi

234

4

238

25

2

27

Dontabeng

192

0

192

20

2

22

Phon

105

76

181

11

7

18

Dongnachan

104

12

116

11

2

13

Total

2,362

1,054

3,416

248

118

366


The model

Using Multiple-regression model and Ordinary Least Squares: OLS, the impact model of Park and Wang (2010):

(1)

: Income and expense households per year

: Characteristic of households,

: Characteristic of village,

: Households Migration worker is call Dummy variable and 1 migration worker households and other 0.

: Measure impact income and expense of migration worker

: Constant

and parameter of and

: error term.

With highly skewed so the function (1) substitution by Semi-log form

(2)

Log of households income and expenditure per year


Table 3: Variable and Definition

Variable

Definition

Impact Target

Independent variable



Ln(Income)

Logarithm households income per year


Ln(Expense)

Logarithm households expense per year


Dependent Variable



Characteristic of households (CH)



Gender: Gender of households head

1 = woman, 0 = other

-

Age: Age of households head

year

+

Educ: Education level of households head

year

+

OCCG: Households head are government staff

1 = yes, 0 = other

+

OCCR: Households head are business

1 = yes, 0 = other

+

OCCF: Households head are farmer

1 = yes, 0 = other

+

Status: Status of households head

1 = married, 0 = other

+

NDR: Number of people depending on households

person

-

Literature: No of households member go to school

person

+

Characteristic of village



Road: Road to village can use two season

1 = yes, o = other

+

DM: The distance of village to market

Km

-

HLW: Households member migration to Thailand

1 = yes, o = other

+


Collection Data

Using questionnaire to interviews face to face on the households head in two group: migration worker households and non-migration worker households in 10 villages, villager for collecting data at the village level.


Data analysis

Analyze the reason of migration worker from Champasak and Phonethong districts to Kingdom of Thailand, descriptive analysis and calculate in percentage and bar chart.

The impact of migration worker with income and expenditure of migration worker households, using multiple regressions. The dependent variable in form of Logarithm using OLS method.


The result of study

The general characteristic

The result shows that poverty rate in Champasak district 27.3% higher than Phonethong district 19.8%, because people living in two districts are farmer 71.3%. Education level of households head graduate from primary school 23%, households size in average is 6 people, number of depending on households is 4 people. So the income in two districts are not difference that shows in table 4.


Table 4: The general characteristic

Characteristic

Total

Champasak district

Phonethong district


Migration

Worker

Households

Non-Migration

Worker

Households

Total

Migration

Worker

Households

Non-Migration

Worker

Households

Total

Migration

Worker

Households

Non-Migration

Worker

Households

Total

Gender (%)

Man

Woman


33.5

66.5


27.1

72.9


31.4

68.6


29.1

70.9


34.4

65.6


32.3

67.7


31.9

68.1


13.3

86.7


29.2

70.8

Age (year)

54

49

52

54

50

52

55

49

54

Status (%)

Married

Single

Divorced


85.1

1.2

13.7


85.6

1.7

12.7


85.2

1.4

13.4


85.4

1.9

12.6


86.0

0.6

13.4


85.8

1.2

13.1


83.5

2.2

14.3


86.7

0.0

13.3


84.0

1.9

14.2

Occupation (%)

Farmer

Government staff

Business

Worker

Unemployment

Other


73.0

4.0

5.6

3.6

9.7

4.0


67.8

4.2

11.9

4.2

5.9

5.9


71.3

4.1

7.7

3.8

8.5

4.6


65.0

3.9

12.6

4.9

6.8

6.8


66.9

4.5

7.6

5.1

12.1

3.8


66.2

4.2

9.6

5.0

10.0

5.0


83.5

3.3

2.2

1.1

5.5

4.4


86.7

6.7

6.7

0.0

0.0

0.0


84.0

3.8

2.8

0.9

4.7

3.8

Education Level (%)

Non-go to school

Primary school

Secondary school

High school

Vocational

Bachelor degree


44.4

36.3

13.3

2.0

4.0

0.0


39.8

28.0

16.1

8.5

6.8

0.8


42.9

33.6

14.2

4.1

4.9

0.3


41.7

27.2

15.5

7.8

6.8

1.0


47.8

31.2

15.9

1.3

3.8

0.0


45.4

29.6

15.8

3.8

5.0

0.4


26.7

33.3

20.0

13.3

6.7

0.0


38.5

45.1

8.8

3.3

4.4

0.0


36.8

43.4

10.4

4.7

4.7

0.0

Households Size (Person)

7

6

6

7

5

6

7

5

7

No of people depend on households (person)

4

3

4

4

3

4

4

3

4

No of worker (person)

5

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

4

No of literature (person)

5

4

5

6

4

5

5

4

5

Households income 1,000(kip)

3,868

2,552

3,444

3,636

2,607

3,228

4,267

2,176

3,972

Households expenditure (1,000kip)

2,232

2,607

2,333

2,071

2,690

2,316

2,510

2,038

2,443

Source: Data survey on 27.11.2013


The causes of worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand

The research result found that, the main reason of worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand is unemployment that mean they can’t find the job after harvest season. The second reason is the wage in Thailand higher than in hometown, so they can remittances money to family for consumption, business and buy the basic need in the households. The migration worker to Kingdom of Thailand easy than go to other country because easy to prepare document and passport, near their hometown. Easy to find the job and easy to understand Thai language.

Figure is available at PDF file

Figure 1: The causes of worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand

Source: Data survey on 27.11.2013


The impact of such worker migration on household income expenditure in households

The main factor impact on household’s income is age of households head and positive with income, it means that the households head older and income increasing 1.29%. It’s positive with hypothesis of this study and level significant is 0.05. If the households head are business income increasing 88.72%. The households head are married also positive impact with household’s income. The households with migration workers to Kingdom of Thailand can increasing income 59.12%.


Table 5: The impact of such worker migration on household income

Table is available at PDF file

Source: Data survey on 27.11.2013

Note: *, **, and *** level of significant 90%, 95% ແລະ 99%.


The impact of such worker migration on household’s expenditure

The research result found that, the main factor impact to households expenditure is Government staff 55.80%. Gender of households head ( households head are woman) the percentage of expenditure is 38.87% with level of significant is 0.01. The households with migration workers to Kingdom of Thailand can increase expenditure 33.88%. with level of significant is 0.05.


Table 6: Impact of such workers migration on household’s expenditure

Table is available at PDF file


Source: Data survey on 27.11.2013

Note: *, **, and *** level of significant 90%, 95% ແລະ 99%.


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

With high percentage poverty incidence in Lao is 24% year 2013, affected to living standard and people find another way to poverty reduction. The migration worker and remittance is the way to find the income to spend for household’s consumption, business and basic needs.

Champasak province shares the border with Thailand and easy to cross the border to for find the job with high wage. The impact of migration from Champasak province, Lao PDR to the Kingdom of Thailand 1) identify and investigate the causes of worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand, and 2) consider the impact of such worker migration on Lao household income and expenditure in households where migrant workers remit monies to families in Champasak and Phonthong Districts. This study consisted of 366 households. The result shows the reasons for Lao migration worker to the Kingdom of Thailand were: unemployment, higher wage in Thailand, seeking new experiences and household’s lack of basic needs. Migration to the Kingdom of Thailand had positive effects on the house hold incomes. This research found that Lao worker migration to the Kingdom of Thailand resulted in positive effect on household incomes in Champasak District with remittances causing incomes to increase 59.12 percent: however, expenditure was negatively impacted with level of significance at 0.05. The effect on expenditure in Phonthong District was positive. It takes 33.88 percentages with level of significance at 0.1.


In summary, the research results indicate that international worker migration and consequent remittances can increase household incomes that help reducing poverty in rural areas.

Hence it seems that, under Lao labour laws, a public sector policy should try to promote the professional practice legal worker migration should be considered as the responsibility under the sector.


Reference

  1. Albert Park and Dewen Wang. (2010). Migration and Urban Poverty and Inequality in China. Discussion Paper No. 4877, April 2010

  2. Asian Development Bank (2011). The ADB annual report 2011 comprises two separate Volumes: volume 1 is the main report and volume 2 contains the financial statements and statistical annexes.

  3. Department of Labour and Social Welfare. (2013). the annual report 2013. Department of Labour and Social Welfare in Champasak province, 2013

  4. Dean Yang and Claudia Martinez. (2005). Remittances and Poverty in Migrants’ Home Areas: Evidence from the Philippines. JEL codes: D81, F22, F32, O12, O15

  5. Richmond Tiemoko. (2003). Migration, Return and Socio-Economic Change in West Africa: The Role of Family. Sussex Migration Working Paper no. 15, 2003

  6. Richard Black, Russell King, Richmond Tiemoko. (2003). Migration, return and small enterprise development in Ghana: a route out of poverty?. International Workshop on Migration and Poverty in West Africa. March 13-14, 2003, University of Sussex.

  7. Richard, H., Adams, JR., and John, P. (2005). Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?. World Development, 33(10), pp. 1645–1669.

  8. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2002). International Migration Report 2002. New York: United Nations.

1 Investment opportunity in Lao, Champasak province, 2011

Copyright © 2020 Inlight Publisher (IARCON INTERATIONAL LLP). All Rights Reserved.