Abstract

This dataset, a product of the Trade Team - Development Research Group, is part of a larger effort in the group to measure the extent of the brain drain as part of the International Migration and Development Program. It measures international skilled migration for the years 1975-2000.

The methodology is explained in: "Tendance de long terme des migrations internationals. Analyse à partir des 6 principaux pays recerveurs", Cécily Defoort.

This data set uses the same methodology as used in the Docquier-Marfouk data set on international migration by educational attainment. The authors use data from 6 key receiving countries in the OECD: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the UK and the US.

It is estimated that the data represent approximately 77 percent of the world’s migrant population.

Bilateral brain drain rates are estimated based observations for every five years, during the period 1975-2000.

Geographic coverage

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, UK and US

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

Abstract

The household registration system known as ho khau has been a part of the fabric of life in Vietnam for over 50 years. The system was used as an instrument of public security, economic planning, and control of migration, at a time when the state played a stronger role in direct management of the economy and the life of its citizens. Although the system has become less rigid over time, concerns persist that ho khau limits the rights and access to public services of those who lack permanent registration in their place of residence. Due largely to data constraints, however, previous discussions about the system have relied largely on anecdotal or partial information.

Drawing from historical roots as well as the similar model of China’s hukou, the ho khau system was established in Vietnam in 1964. The 1964 law established the basic parameters of the system: every citizen was to be registered as a resident in one and only household at the place of permanent residence, and movements could take place only with the permission of authorities. Controlling migration to cities was part of the system’s early motivation, and the system’s ties to rationing, public services, and employment made it an effective check on unsanctioned migration. Transfer of one’s ho khau from one place to another was possible in principle but challenging in practice.

The force of the system has diminished since the launch of Doi Moi as well as a series of reforms starting in 2006. Most critically, it is no longer necessary to obtain permission from the local authorities in the place of departure to register in a new location. Additionally, obtaining temporary registration status in a new location is no longer difficult. However, in recent years the direction of policy changes regarding ho khau has been varied. A 2013 law explicitly recognized the authority of local authorities to set their own policies regarding registration, and some cities have tightened the requirements for obtaining permanent status.

Understanding of the system has been hampered by the fact that those without permanent registration have not appeared in most conventional sources of socioeconomic data. To gather data for this project, a survey of 5000 respondents in five provinces was done in June-July 2015. The samples are representative of the population in 5 provinces – Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Noi, Da Nang, Binh Duong and Dak Nong. Those five provinces/cities are among the provinces with the highest rate of migration as estimated using data from Population Census 2009.

Geographic coverage

5 provinces – Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Noi, Da Nang, Binh Duong and Dak Nong.

Analysis unit

Household

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sampling for the Household Registration Survey was conducted in two stages. The two stages were selection of 250 enumeration areas (50 EAs in each of 5 provinces) and then selection of 20 households in each selected EA, resulting in a total sample size of 5000 households. The EAs were selected using Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) method based on the square number of migrants in each EA, with the aim to increase the probability of being selected for EAs with higher number of migrants. “Migrants” were defined using the census data as those who lived in a different province five years previous to the census. The 2009 Population Census data was used as the sample frame for the selection of EAs. To make sure the sampling frame was accurate and up to date, EA leaders of the sampled EAs were asked to collection information of all households regardless of registration status at their ward a month before the actual fieldwork. Information collected include name of head of household, address, gender, age of household’s head, household phone number, residence registration status of household, and place of their registration 5 years ago. All households on the resulting lists were found to have either temporary or permanent registration in their current place of residence.

Using these lists, selection of survey households was stratified at the EA level to ensure a substantial surveyed population of households without permanent registration. In each EA random selection was conducted of 12 households with temporary registration status and 8 households with permanent registration status. For EAs where the number of temporary registration households was less than 12, all of the temporary registration households were selected and additional permanent registration households were selected to ensure that each EA had 20 survey households. Sampling weights were calculated taking into the account the selection rules for the first and second stages of the survey.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The questionnaire was mostly adapted from the Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey (VHLSS), and the Urban Poverty Survey (UPS) with appropriate adjustment and supplement of a number of questions to follow closely the objectives of this survey. The household questionnaire consists of a set of questions on the following contents:

• Demographic characteristics of household members with emphasis on their residence status in terms of both administrative management (permanent/temporary residence book) and real residential situation. • Education of household members. Beside information on education level, the respondents are asked whether a household member attend school as “trai-tuyen” , how much “trai-tuyen” fee/enrolment fee, and difficulty in attending schools without permanent residence status. • Health and health care, collecting information on medical status and health insurance card of household members. • Labour and employment, asking household member’s employment status in the last 30 days; their most and second-most time-consuming employment during the last 30 days; and whether they had been asked about residence status when looking for job. • Assets and housing conditions. This section collects information on household’s living conditions such as assets, housing types and areas, electricity, water and energy. • Income and expenditure of households. • Social inclusion and protection. The respondents are asked whether their household members participate in social organizations, activities, services, contribution; whether they benefit from any social project/policy; do they have any loans within the last 12 months; and to provide information about five of their friends at their residential area. • Knowledge on the Law of Residence, current regulations on conditions for obtaining permanent residence, experience dealing with residence issues, and opinion on current household registration system of the respondents.

Cleaning operations

Managing and Cleaning the Data

Data were managed and cleaned each day immediately upon being received, which occurred at the same time as the fieldwork surveys. At the end of each workday, the survey teams were required to review all of the interviews conducted and transfer collected data to the server. The data received by the main server were downloaded and monitored by MDRI staff.

At this stage, MDRI assigned a technical team to work on the data. First, the team listened to interview records and used an application to detect enumerators’ errors. In this way, MDRI quickly identified and corrected the mistakes of the interviewers. Then the technical team proceeded with data cleaning by questionnaire, based on the following quantity and quality checking criteria.

• Quantity checking criteria: The number of questionnaires must be matched with the completed interviews and the questionnaires assigned to each individual in the field. According to the plan, each survey team conducted 20 household questionnaires in each village. All questionnaires were checked to ensure that they contained all essential information, and duplicated entries were eliminated. • Quality checking criteria: Our staff performed a thorough examination of the practicality and logic of the data. If there was any suspicious or inconsistent information, the data management team re – listened to the records or contacted the respondents and survey teams for clarification via phone call. Necessary revisions would then be made.

Data cleaning was implemented by the following stages: 1. Identification of illogical values; 2. Software – based detection of errors for clarification and revision; 3. Information re-checking with respondents and/or enumerators via phone or through looking at the records; 4. Development and implementation of errors correction algorithms; The list of detected and adjusted errors is attached in Annex 6.

Outlier detection methods The data team applied a popular non - parametric method for outlier detection, which can be done with the following procedure: 1. Identify the first quartile Q1 (the 25th percentile data point) 2. Identify the third quartile Q3 (the 75th percentile data point) 3. Identify the inter-quartile range(IQR): IQR=Q3-Q1 4. Calculate lower limits (L) and upper limits (U) by the following formulas: o L=Q1-1.5*IQR o U=Q3+1.5*IQR 5. Detect outliers by the rule: An observation is an outlier if it lies below the lower bound or beyond the upper bound (i.e. less than L or greater than U)

Data Structure The completed dataset for the “Household registration survey 2015” includes 9 files in STATA format (.dta): • hrs_maindata: Information on the households, including: assets, housing, income, expenditures, social inclusion and social protection issues, household registration procedures • hrs_muc1: Basic information on the

Abstract

The Pakistan Integrated Household Survey (PIHS) was conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS), Government of Pakistan, and the World Bank. The survey was part of the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) household surveys that have been conducted in a number of developing countries with the assistance of the World Bank. The purpose of these surveys is to provide policy makers and researchers with individual, household, and community level data needed to analyze the impact of policy initiatives on living standards of households.

The Pakistan Integrated Household Survey was carried out in 1991. This nationwide survey gathered individual and household level data using a multi-purpose household questionnaire. Topics covered included housing conditions, education, health, employment characteristics, selfemployment activities, consumption, migration, fertility, credit and savings, and household energy consumption. Community level and price data were also collected during the course of the survey.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals
• Communities

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample for the PIHS was drawn using a multi-stage stratified sampling procedure from the Master Sample Frame developed by FBS based on the 1981 Population Census.

SAMPLE FRAME:

This sample frame covers all four provinces (Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, and Balochistan) and both urban and rural areas. Excluded, however, are the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, military restricted areas, the districts of Kohistan, Chitral and Malakand and protected areas of NWFP. According to the FBS, the population of the excluded areas amounts to about 4 percent of the total population of Pakistan. Also excluded are households which depend entirely on charity for their living.

The sample frame consists of three main domains: (a) the self-representing cities; (b) other urban areas; and (c) rural areas. These domains are further split up into a number of smaller strata based on the system used by the Government to divide the country into administrative units. The four provinces of Pakistan mentioned above are divided into 20 divisions altogether; each of these divisions in turn is then further split into several districts. The system used to divide the sample frame into the three domains and the various strata is as follows: (a) Self-representing cities: All cities with a population of 500,000 or more are classified as self-representing cities. These include Karachi, Lahore, Gujranwala, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, Multan, Hyderabad and Peshawar. In addition to these cities, Islamabad and Quetta are also included in this group as a result of being the national and provincial capitals respectively. Each self-representing city is considered as a separate stratum, and is further sub-stratified into low, medium, and high income groups on the basis of information collected at the time of demarcation or updating of the urban area sample frame. (b) Other urban areas: All settlements with a population of 5,000 or more at the time of the 1981 Population Census are included in this group (excluding the self-representing cities mentioned above). Urban areas in each division of the four provinces are considered to be separate strata. (c) Rural areas: Villages and communities with population less than 5,000 (at the time of the Census) are classified as rural areas. Settlements within each district of the country are considered to be separate strata with the exception of Balochistan province where, as a result of the relatively sparse population of the districts, each division instead is taken to be a stratum.

Main strata of the Master Sample frame

Domain / Punjab / Sindh / NWFP / Balochistan / PAKISTAN Self-representing cities / 6 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 10 Other urban areas / 8 / 3 / 5 / 4 / 20 Rural areas / 30 / 14 / 10 / 4 / 58 Total 44 / 19 / 16 / 9 / 88

As the above table shows, the sample frame consists of 88 strata altogether. Households in each stratum of the sample frame are exclusively and exhaustively divided into PSUs. In urban areas, each city or town is divided into a number of enumeration blocks with welldefined boundaries and maps. Each enumeration block consists of about 200-250 households, and is taken to be a separate PSU. The list of enumeration blocks is updated every five years or so, with the list used for the PIHS having been modified on the basis of the Census of Establishments conducted in 1988. In rural areas, demarcation of PSUs has been done on the basis of the list of villages/mouzas/dehs published by the Population Census Organization based on the 1981 Census. Each of these villages/mouzas/dehs is taken to be a separate PSU. Altogether, the sample frame consists of approximately 18,000 urban and 43,000 rural PSUs.

SAMPLE SELECTION:

The PIHS sample comprised 4,800 households drawn from 300 PSUs throughout the country. Sample PSUs were divided equally between urban and rural areas, with at least two PSUs selected from each of the strata. Selection of PSUs from within each stratum was carried out using the probability proportional to estimated size method. In urban areas, estimates of the size of PSUs were based on the household count as found during the 1988 Census of Establishments. In rural areas, these estimates were based on the population count during the 1981 Census.

Once sample PSUs had been identified, a listing of all households residing in the PSU was made in all those PSUs where such a listing exercise had not been undertaken recently. Using systematic sampling with a random start, a short-list of 24 households was prepared for each PSU. Sixteen households from this list were selected to be interviewed from the PSU; every third household on the list was designated as a replacement household to be interviewed only if it was not possible to interview either of the two households immediately preceding it on the list.

As a result of replacing households that could not be interviewed because of non-responses, temporary absence, and other such reasons, the actual number of households interviewed during the survey - 4,794 - was very close to the planned sample size of 4,800 households. Moreover, following a pre-determined procedure for replacing households had the added advantage of minimizing any biases that may otherwise have arisen had field teams been allowed more discretion in choosing substitute households.

SAMPLE DESIGN EFFECTS:

The three-stage stratified sampling procedure outlined above has several advantages from the point of view of survey organization and implementation. Using this procedure ensures that all regions or strata deemed important are represented in the sample drawn for the survey. Picking clusters of households or PSUs in the various strata rather than directly drawing households randomly from throughout the country greatly reduces travel time and cost. Finally, selecting a fixed number of households in each PSU makes it easier to distribute the workload evenly amongst field teams. However, in using this procedure to select the sample for the survey, two important matters need to be given consideration: (a) sampling weights or raising factors have to be first calculated to get national estimates from the survey data; and (b) the standard errors for estimates obtained from the data need to be adjusted to take account for the use of this procedure.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The PIHS used three questionnaires: a household questionnaire, a community questionnaire, and a price questionnaire.

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE:

The PIHS questionnaire comprised 17 sections, each of which covered a separate aspect of household activity. The various sections of the household questionnaire were as follows: 1. HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION 2. HOUSING 3. EDUCATION 4. HEALTH 5. WAGE EMPLOYMENT 6. FAMILY LABOR 7. ENERGY 8. MIGRATION 9. FARMING AND LIVESTOCK 10. NON-FARM ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES 11. NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES AND INVENTORY OF DURABLE GOODS 12. FOOD EXPENSES AND HOME PRODUCTION 13. MARRIAGE AND MATERNITY HISTORY 14. ANTHROPOMETRICS 15. CREDIT AND SAVINGS 16. TRANSFERS AND REMITTANCES 17. OTHER INCOME

The household questionnaire was designed to be administered in two visits to each sample household. Apart from avoiding the problem of interviewing household members in one long stretch, scheduling two visits also allowed the teams to improve the quality of the data collected.

During the first visit to the household (Round 1), the enumerators covered sections 1 to 8, and fixed a date with the designated respondents of the household for the second visit. During the second visit (Round 2), which was normally held two weeks after the first visit, the enumerators covered the remaining portion of the questionnaire and resolved any omissions or inconsistencies that were detected during data entry of information from the first part of the survey.

Since many of the sections of the questionnaire pertained specifically to female members of the household, female interviewers were included in conducting the survey. The household questionnaire was split into two parts (Male and Female). Sections such as SECTION 3: EDUCATION, which solicited information on all individual members of the household (male as well as female) were included in both parts of the questionnaire. Other sections such as SECTION 2: HOUSING and SECTION 12: FOOD EXPENSES AND HOME PRODUCTION , which collected data at the aggregate household level, were included in either the male questionnaire or the female questionnaire, depending upon which member of the household was more likely