International Labour Migration, Remittances and Remittances-based Spending: Quantitative Study of Decision-making in the Kyrgyz Republic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following PhD dissertation is a quantitative study of individual as well as household decision-making in three linked processes: international labour migration, remittances and remittances-based spending. Three sets of questions are posed in three separate chapters. First, in regards to migration: why do some individuals intend to migrate whereas others do not; and does the intention to migrate affect actual migration behaviour? Second, in regards to remitting: which migrants are more likely to remit; and which migrants remit more? Third, in regards to spending: is it migrants themselves who decide how their remittances are spent; and to what extent do remittances offset the monetary cost of hosting festivities regarded as “customs and traditions”? In search of answers, the dissertation resorts to a statistical analysis of national household survey data from the Kyrgyz Republic. The choice of the methodology is based to the availability of a robust dataset that is suitable for empirical methods, and to the fact that the country is highly dependent on migration and remittances.Several key empirical findings emerge from the analyses. First, the intention to migrate is correlated with travel experience, ethnicity, access to a family network abroad and regional unemployment; also, an intention does have a strong positive impact on actual migration behaviour. Second, the incidence of remitting is increased consistently in the case of men and older migrants, whereas the amount of remittances per remitter is higher when sent by household heads or highly educated migrants, especially to urban or post-shock households. Third, remitters often do not decide how their remittances are used, and remittances-receiving households spend on average more on some types of festivities, but not on all; despite the high average expenditures on festivities, gifts received by households substantially offset the total cost, thus reducing the financial burden of hosting such events. Policy-relevant implications of the findings as well as suggestions for further research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".