Technical Report On Gallup v7 Finalpubsy

A global analysis of intentions to
migrate
Migali, S.
Scipioni, M.
JRC111207
This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science
and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking
process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither
the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that
might be made of this publication.
Contact information
Name: Silvia Migali
Email: [email protected]
JRC Science Hub

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc
JRC111207
Ispra: European Commission, 2018
© European Union, 2018
The reuse of the document is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the original meaning or
message of the texts are not distorted. The European Commission shall not be held liable for any consequences
stemming from the reuse.
How to cite this report: Migali, S. and Scipioni, M., A global analysis of intentions to migrate, European
Commission, 2018, JRC111207.
All images © European Union 2018, except: front page, Johnny Lye, image 7894880, 2017. Source:
Fotolia.com
Printed in Italy
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................... 2
1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 3
2 Relevant literature ............................................................................................. 5
3 Facts and Figures .............................................................................................. 7

3.1 Data source ................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Descriptive analysis ..................................................................................... 8

3.2.1 Migration intentions: the general picture ................................................. 8
3.2.2 The profile of those who intend to migrate ............................................ 11

4 Empirical analysis ............................................................................................ 18
4.1 Migration desire ......................................................................................... 18

4.2 Migration plan ........................................................................................... 21
4.3 Migration preparation ................................................................................. 24

5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 28
6 Appendix A ..................................................................................................... 30
6.1 Variables used: definition, description, and coverage ..................................... 30
6.2 Descriptive analysis ................................................................................... 32
7 Appendix B ..................................................................................................... 46
8 References...................................................................................................... 52
List of figures ...................................................................................................... 54
List of tables ....................................................................................................... 55
1
Abstract
This Technical Report analyses intentions to migrate in different forms: desire to move
abroad, actual plans, and preparations. By using data from the Gallup World Poll survey
for the period 2010-2015, this report measures and maps these intentions globally, and
then estimates their likely drivers, in terms of demographic and socio-economic
characteristics. It also takes into account the differentiation of these intentions either
across countries with different income levels, or broad geographical areas. First, the
report shows that worldwide migration intentions – spelled out separately by Gallup in
terms of wishing, planning, and preparing to migrate – largely differ in magnitude. For
policy makers, the share of population that expressed a desire to migrate is an imperfect
measure of what is often portrayed as potential migration. Second, the empirical analysis
shows that being young, male, foreign-born, highly educated, unemployed, as well as
having networks abroad is associated with higher probability of preparing for
international migration. The results also confirm the non-linear relation between
migration preparation and individual income. Finally, the report finds that being
dissatisfied with one’s own standard of living is associated with a higher probability to
desire and to plan a journey abroad, while the relation with preparation to migrate is less
clear.
2
1 Overview
In the last decade there has been a growing interest from both policy and academic
communities on the intentions to migrate, their determinants, and eventual
consequences. Social scientists strive to provide a conceptual framework to explain how
migration decisions come about, by distinguishing between the aspiration to migrate–
and the capabilities/abilities to do so (De Haas 2010; Carling and Schewel 2017a). In the
same vein, economists seek empirical evidence on the drivers of migration potential and
how this materialises into concrete movements; indeed, those wishing to move abroad
need to have both the means and the concrete opportunities to translate their migration
desire into an actual decision (Docquier et al. 2017). Policy makers are eager to better
understand migration in all its phases and to anticipate future migration movements
(Laczko et al. 2017). In an operational perspective, having a firmer grasp of the
characteristics and the motivations of individuals seeking to move abroad may be
beneficial to design future migration policies. For instance, information campaigns
targeting would-be migrants could take into account that, as we find in this report, those
who prepare to migrate tend to be more educated as compared to the overall population.
While this analysis does not necessarily include the ones who are forced to migrate (e.g.
asylum seekers), it does provide valuable insights on would-be voluntary migrants.
The aim of this report is to provide a systematic analysis of different forms of intentions
to migrate. The analysis is based on data from the Gallup World Poll, a rich worldwide
survey containing information on migration intentions for the period 2010-2015 for more
than 160 countries. Gallup investigates intentions to migrate mainly in three forms: the
wish to move abroad, the plan, and the concrete preparation. This report first sets out to
describe these three forms of intentions to migrate individually, by aggregating countries
by income and continent. More precisely, the main objective of the report is to quantify
the likely drivers for migration intentions. In practice, it focuses on two sets of drivers:
individual demographic characteristics and socio-economic conditions; and subjective
well-being.
The added value of this report consists of its wide geographical coverage. As previously
mentioned, to highlight cross-country variations in migration intentions, two groupings
are formed: one based on distinct levels of economic development, and the other on
geographical areas. Additionally, the report focuses not only on the wish to move abroad,
but also on the plan and migration preparation, which have been often neglected in
previous studies. Finally, the report does not limit itself to a pure description of
developments in global trends, but proposes estimates of the drivers of the migration
intentions.
Overall, the results of the analysis suggest that wishing to migrate, often the exclusive
focus in previous studies and portrayed as potential migration, should be instead
interpreted as a proxy for life dissatisfaction rather than for potential migration. The
investigation of the drivers of migration intentions confirms that the demographic and
socio-economic individual characteristics, having previous migration experiences, and an
international network of family and friends, are the likely drivers of migration intentions.
Having said this, these relationships should not be interpreted as causal. Importantly,
when looking at migration preparation, its non-linear association with individual income is
also confirmed.
3
The report is structured as follows. Section 2 briefly reviews the economic and policy-
oriented literature on potential migration and aspirations. Section 3 presents the data
source. It then provides a descriptive analysis of both worldwide migration intentions-
wish, plan, and preparation to migrate - and the characteristics of those who intend to
migrate. Section 4 shows the results from the empirical analysis regarding the
determinants of the intentions to migrate. Section 5 offers some concluding remarks.
4
2 Relevant literature
Much of the recent literature investigating potential migration and aspirations to move
abroad is based on the Gallup World Poll. Esipova et al. (2011) have conducted the first
investigation of potential migration worldwide by using Gallup data from 2009 to 2013.
The authors pointed out that while 630 million people expressed the wish to move
permanently abroad in 2011, only 8 percent of the global population is planning to
migrate, and even a lower share is actually preparing for the journey. The authors
observe that the majority of those wishing to migrate is constituted by underemployed
individuals. Moreover, those desiring to move abroad tend to have transnational social
networks. Those individual characteristics of potential migrants are also confirmed by the
OECD (Xenogiani et al. 2015). Analogous patterns are also found when looking at the
purported subsequent steps of potential migration (plan, preparation) in different regions
of the world. The share of the population desiring to move abroad ranges from 16
percent (for Asia and Oceania) to 30 percent (for Sub-Saharan Africa) over the period
2007-2013. The percentage of those planning and then actually preparing to migrate is
lower in all the regions. Overall, OECD countries constitute the most desired destinations.
When focusing on the attractiveness of Europe for potential migrants, Gubert and Senne
(2016) show that in 2011 UK and France are the most desired destinations, followed by
Germany, Spain, and Italy.
Besides the descriptive analyses, recent contributions have focused on the identification
of the drivers of migration aspiration rates by aggregating Gallup individual-level data at
the country-level (i.e. by the origin and the desired destination country of potential
migrants). For instance, when analysing the determinants of aspirations and realized
migration rates, Docquier et al. find that income and employment probability in the
desired destination country, as well as the presence of networks, are the main drivers of
the wish to migrate (Docquier et al. 2014). Potential migration is more likely to translate
into actual migration for those individuals with higher education, and when the growth
prospects in the desired destination country are favourable. Similarly, Dao et al. (2018)
use Gallup data to estimate migration aspiration rates, while controlling for educational
levels. Their results suggest that relatively young and educated people tend to display
higher aspirations to migrate. Moreover, they find that geographic dyadic variables (such
as the distance between the country of origin of potential migrants and their desired
destination) and the presence of networks at destination are relevant drivers for
migration aspiration of both highly and low educated individuals. Income is a significant
determinant of the aspirations of low skilled individuals only.
The drivers of potential migration have been scrutinized also by focusing on the
individual dimension (i.e. by using Gallup data disaggregated at the individual level). The
pioneering study of Dustmann and Okatenko (2014) have explored the drivers of the
likelihood to move from the place one is living by using data from the 2006 Gallup wave.
Despite the likelihood to move represents a generic movement, which embraces both
internal and international migration, their results confirm the drivers of international
migration movements. Indeed, they find that the likelihood to move increases with
personal income for those individuals coming from the poorest world-regions (Sub-
Saharan Africa and Asia), while this relation is not strong for those coming from richer
regions (Latin America). This is in line with the inverse U-shaped relation between
income and migration (Clemens 2014). They also provide evidence that the satisfactions
with local amenities (such as public services and security) tend to reduce the likelihood to
5
move to another place. Overall, this is consistent with the general finding that happiness
and life satisfaction negatively correlates with desired migration, even though the causal
effects have not been established yet (for a review of the relationship between well-being
and desire to migrate, see Ivlevs 2014).
The role of networks in fostering the wish to migrate is confirmed when using Gallup
data. Having a relative or friend living in a given destination increases the attractiveness
of that country for potential migrants (Bertoli and Ruyssen 2016). Manchin and
Orazbayev (2016) confirm the positive effect of networks on migration intentions. In
addition, they show that the role of networks is stronger when friends and family who are
abroad also send remittances. Indeed, remittances might be used either to sustain part
of the migration costs or to signal the possibility of getting good wages abroad, as well as
the intensity of the ties between the would-be migrant and the network abroad. Having
strong social bonds and networks in the origin country act as deterrents for the aspiration
to move abroad. Finally, to have a deep understanding of migration intentions, cultural
aspects cannot be neglected. In particular, by using an instrumental variable approach,
Ryussen and Salomone (2018) retrieve the causal effects of gender discrimination on
potential female migration. Women’s awareness of gender discrimination increases their
desire to move. However, actual preparation of their migration journey is mainly guided
by traditional drivers such as income and networks.
6
3 Facts and Figures
3.1 Data source

The Gallup World Poll is a unique public opinion survey covering more than 150 countries
in the world and representing 99% of the world population. For each country, Gallup
interviews1 approximately 1,000 individuals who are representative of the country’s
population older than 15. The survey includes a series of questions which are repeated
every year to different individuals2. For most of the countries in Tables 7 and 83, the time
coverage of the questions on migration intentions is from 2010 to 20154.
In addition to the information on demographic characteristics and socio-economic status
of the respondents, Gallup inquires about different dimensions of subjective well-being,
such as one’s own assessment of the personal financial situation, the environment one is
living, and the general life standards. A broad set of questions focuses on perceptions
and opinions of different topics, such as corruption, migration, religion, and
discrimination.
Gallup provides an unprecedented source of information on individual migration

aspirations, thus allowing extensive analyses of potential migration (Esipova et al. 2011).
Recent scholarship has moved some criticisms to the very questions asked by Gallup,
and consequently on the kinds of insights that can be derived from these surveys. Carling
and Schewel hold that the questions are ‘exceedingly hard to interpret’ by respondents,
as they imply a counterfactual at the beginning of the ‘wish’-question (2017b: 7). In
addition, the inclusion of words such as ‘permanently’ might unnecessarily restrict the
analysis to a form of migration that excludes circular or temporary migration, or simply
an aspiration to migrate which has not factored in a pre-defined duration. Other critical
aspects and caveats also exist. As summarized by Clemens and Pritchett (2016), Gallup
data could suffer from the reference point and the embedding problems, which are
common in survey data. Specifically, the reference point issue refers to the fact that
preferences expressed by individuals depend on their reference situation. For example, if
an individual feels that he/she cannot migrate, he/she will tend to undervalue the
earnings he/she would have got by moving abroad. The embedding problem refers to the
fact that individual preferences could depend on the context where the question is asked.
For instance, if emigration from a given country is perceived as dangerous and difficult
(due to the presence of legal restrictions or to the fact that previous emigrants from the
same country do not find good labour market conditions abroad), individuals might not
express the wish to migrate. Differently, in a scenario where emigration is easy and
emigrants fare well abroad, individuals might be more inclined to declare the willingness
to migrate.
1
Either by face-to-face interviews, or by telephone.
2
Even though Gallup aims at being consistent in its coverage, there are still a limited number of gaps (i.e.
missing values) in both geographical and time scope.
3
For the list of countries, see the Appendix A.
4
For further details on the methodology, see (Gallup 2017b).
7
3.2 Descriptive analysis
3.2.1 Migration intentions: the general picture

Intentions to migrate, which constitute the focus of the analysis, are captured by the
following Gallup questions (Gallup 2017b).
 Migration wish (or desire): Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to
move permanently to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in
this country?
 Migration plan: Are you planning to move permanently to another country in the
next 12 months, or not? (asked only of those who would like to move to another
country).
 Migration preparation: Have you done any preparation for this move? (asked
only of those who are planning to move to another country in the next 12
months).
While the wish to migrate represents a generic indication of the desire to move, the other
two questions (namely, plan and preparation) reveal more concrete intentions and
indeed arrangements that people may undertake before leaving. In other words, the
question related to wish to migrate may be recording a simple general aspiration present
in the population, along the lines of having a fairer taxation system, be in full
employment (as opposed to unemployment or part-time)5, or successfully completing
tertiary education. The following two questions narrow down the respondents to not only
those who aspire to move, but also those who have the means to achieve and are taking
steps towards carrying out an international journey. Thus, lumping all these three
questions together to measure a single concept – which is what indicators should do –
may be problematic. Consequently, we should expect that a relatively large share of the
population would be attracted by the possibility to move abroad, while a lower portion
would actually plan or be prepared to undertake the migration journey and to bear the
related costs.
When looking at intentions to migrate in different countries, grouped by their income-
level, we can observe that the wish to migrate is consistently higher than the plan and
the preparation over the period 2010-2015. Figure 1 shows the averages6 for the shares
of those who wish, plan, and prepare to migrate, out of the total population by income
levels. The graph displays substantial differences across groups of countries: low income
countries display the highest percentage of population wishing to move (more than one
fourth of the total population), followed by lower and upper middle income countries,
with approximately 22% of the population expressing the desire to migrate. Similar
patterns can be observed for the plan to migrate, which is the highest for low income
countries (with 5% of the population planning to move), closely followed by middle
income countries (around 2% plans to move), and by high income countries, where
slightly more than 1% of the population expresses the plan to move. Importantly, in all
groups of countries, less than 1% of the total population actually prepares for migration.
5
As for instance, in the same Gallup World Poll, the Underemployment Index does.
6
Henceforth, we use averages for the pool of all countries included in the groups we formed (i.e. income- and
geographical-based) in the period 2010-2015. We weight observations according to the individual weights
provided by Gallup. Because of the models we run in the subsequent sections of this report, those who
have answered ‘don’t know’ or ‘refused to answer’ have been recoded as missing, thus they are taken out
from the samples.
8
Figure 1. Intentions to migrate by income-level. Average for 2010-2015
Notes. KCMD elaboration based on Gallup World Poll Survey (waves 2010-2015).
Comparable figures can be observed when disaggregating intentions to migrate by

geographical areas (Figure 2). Africa and Latin America display the highest proportions of
population that wish to move abroad (more than 20%), followed by Europe and Asia. The
plan and preparation to migrate exhibit less variation between regions. Indeed, in all
geographical areas, intentions to migrate do not exceed 5% of population, while
preparation to migrate approximately 1%.
9
Figure 2. Intentions to migrate by geographical area. Average for 2010-2015
Importantly, intentions to migrate appear to be relatively stable over time (Figure 3),
except for a decrease of the wish and the plan to migrate in 2012.
10
Figure 3. Intentions to migrate, 2010-2015
3.2.2 The profile of those who intend to migrate
3.2.2.1 Demographic characteristics
This section sketches the profile of those who intend to migrate - i.e. those wishing,
planning, and preparing to migrate - by looking at their demographic characteristics and
by comparing them to those of the overall surveyed population. The list of variables and
the descriptive statistics are reported in Appendix A (see Tables from 7 to 27). In the
descriptive statistics, countries are grouped either by income-level, or by geographical
areas.
Figure 47 plots the demographic characteristics of the surveyed population (aged 15+)
and of those who intend to migrate for high, middle, and low income countries. For all
the groups of countries, those wishing to migrate are on average younger than the
overall population aged 15 and older. Figure 4 illustrates this by showing that the pale-
brown left-hand columns in each of the top-tier quadrants – representing the average
7
Figures 4 to 8 are based on the tables in Appendix A.
11
ages of the population in the three groups of countries – is higher than the three others,
which stand for the average ages of those who wish, plan, and prepare to migrate, in all
groups of countries. On the contrary, the shares of males, foreign-born, single individuals
are higher among those who intend to migrate than in the overall population. Finally,
those who intend to migrate, on average, have more contacts8 abroad as compared to
the overall population.
Interestingly, the more concrete the migration intentions become, the more individuals
are “selected” along the demographic characteristics. To be accurate, those planning and
preparing for the move abroad tend to be men and are, on average, younger than those
simply wishing to migrate. The share of foreign-born individuals is higher among those
preparing to move than among the other groups. Similarly, the more concrete the
migration aspiration becomes, the more individuals tend to have networks abroad.
Figure 4. Demographic characteristics of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend
to migrate. Average for 2010-2015
3.2.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics

When considering the socio-economic characteristics of migrants - i.e. education level,
income, and labour market status - the following patterns emerge. For all groups of
8
For the definition of networks and of the other variables, see Table 7 in Appendix A.
12
countries (except for the low income and for the African area 9), the majority of the
population completed secondary education, followed by a narrower share of individuals
having attained only primary education, while the tertiary-educated is the smallest group
(Figure 5). Across groups of countries, the percentage of individuals with primary
education is higher among those expressing the intentions to migrate than in the overall
population, while the opposite holds for the percentage of the tertiary educated. In other
words, those with primary education tend not to express an intention to migrate,
whereas the tertiary educated are more likely to hold such views. For all groups of
countries, the more concrete the intention to migrate becomes, the higher the share of
highly educated.
Figure 5. Education level of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend to migrate.
Average for 2010-2015
For low income countries, the above-mentioned pattern is reversed, as the majority of
individuals in the overall population completed primary education. A smaller share of the
population has secondary education, and the lowest has tertiary education. Potential
migrants in low income countries mirror this distribution: the majority is indeed low
educated. Similarly, when grouping countries by geographical areas, the majority of the
population is low-skilled for African countries. However, the share of the low educated
9
Results for continent-based groups are not shown here, but in the Appendix A.
13
decreases the more concrete the migration decision becomes, while the tertiary-educated
tend to increase among those preparing for moving abroad from Africa.
In relation to the labour market status, in all the groups of countries the employed
constitute the majority of the population (Figure 6), followed by those out of the
workforce and the unemployed. The share of the employed is higher among those who
intend to migrate and increases the more concrete the intention becomes (with the
exception of low income countries), while the contrary can be observed for those out of
the workforce. For all the groups of countries, the share of unemployed follows a
somewhat different pattern: while being higher among those who intend to migrate than
in the overall population, it gradually increases among those wishing and planning to
migrate, but then drops for those preparing to move abroad. Again, this might underline
that, among the unemployed, the desire and plan to migrate might be voiced by a sizable
part of the population, but only those with the means can then start to make
arrangements for the journey, hence explaining the relative drop for this category. This
insight is further corroborated by looking at income.
Figure 6. Labour Market status of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend to
migrate. Average for 2010-2015
On average, individual income (measured in international dollars) is higher among those

who intend to migrate than in the overall population for both middle and low income
14
countries. For high income countries10, the reverse is true, as those who intend to move
earn, on average, less than the overall population (Figure 7). Across all groups of
countries, the more concrete the migration intention becomes, the higher the individual
income.
This is consistent with an economically-driven image of international migration, whereby
people in low and middle income countries see large relative gains from an international
move, but face high costs in undertaking it, so are selected on the basis of income (i.e.
only those relatively well-off can afford it). In high income countries, on the other hand,
it is those with a relatively lower income as compared to the group average who may
face relative gains from migration, but are less constrained when it comes to material
barriers to face the journey as they already belong to the relatively wealthy.
Figure 7. Individual income of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend to migrate.
Average for 2010-2015
3.2.2.3 Perceptions & life satisfaction
Life satisfaction, perceptions of one’s own situation, and expectations about individual
economic prospects may influence the intentions to move to another country, thus
shaping the final migration decision (Castles et al. 2014: 37–39, 50–51). The Gallup
World Poll is a rich source of information on well-being and life evaluation, as well as on
perceptions on different economic, social, and political issues. In this analysis, we
examine the possible relationship between intentions to migrate and individual
10
And in Europe, when referring to the geographical areas, see Appendix A.
15
perceptions, by focussing on several dimensions of life satisfaction and on expectations.
Specifically, we look at general life standard satisfaction, life satisfaction in the area
where one is living, the presence of opportunities for children, the satisfaction with
household income, and the confidence in country elections. In relation to expectations,
we look at expectations on general life standards and on economic conditions in the area
one is living (for the definition of each of the variables, see Table 7 in Appendix A)11.
Tables from 20 to 28 in Appendix A show the descriptive statistics for the different
groups of countries by income level and by geographical areas. In general, those who
express the intention to move abroad also tend to report less satisfaction than individuals
in the overall population, both in terms of general living standards and conditions in the
area they live. The literature suggests that, in general, life satisfaction is substantially
determined by gender and age (OECD 2013): more precisely, young males tend to be
comparatively less satisfied. Thus, taking into account that our descriptive statistics
reveal that those who intend to migrate are predominantly male and young, it should not
come as a surprise that those who intend to migrate overall tend to report less
satisfaction than individuals in the overall population. Those intending to migrate also
tend to express lower satisfaction with the opportunities for their children, and to be less
confident in the country elections. Importantly, in the subsequent analysis, the report
makes use only of those variables having full coverage in terms of countries and years,
which are plotted in Figure 8 below.
The first one, household income satisfaction, is used as a proxy of the satisfaction of
one’s own economic conditions and financial possibilities. On average, those preparing to
migrate are more satisfied than those wishing and those planning to move, as well as the
overall population, in all the groups of countries. The share of individuals reporting that
overall their life standards are getting better is slightly higher among those preparing to
move abroad than for the other groups of individuals, especially in low income countries.
Finally, the share of those thinking that local economic conditions are worsening is higher
among those who intend to move than in the overall population in all groups of countries.
In middle and low income countries, the share of population holding negative
expectations on local conditions increases between the desire and plan to migrate, but
this trend is reversed when concrete preparations come into play.
11
These variables are chosen since they correlate with migration intentions.
16
Figure 8. Satisfactions and expectations of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend
to migrate. Average for 2010-2015
17
4 Empirical analysis
This section shows the estimation results of different sets of logistic models for migration
intentions. We run the models for each of the three steps of the potential migration
separately. As the dependent variable, we use migration desire12, migration plan13, and
migration preparation 14. In the first set of models, we include demographic and socio-
economic controls. In the second set, we investigate the association between individual
perceptions and life satisfaction with migration intentions. The regression tables report
the odd ratios from the logistic models15.
It should be stressed that we do not account for endogeneity issues arising, for instance,
by the presence of unobserved factors influencing both migration intentions and general
life satisfaction, education, and the presence of network abroad. In other words, the
results are not interpreted as causal.
4.1 Migration desire

Table 1 below shows the results for migration desire16. The model is estimated for the
countries grouped by their income level. The results with countries grouped by
geographical areas are reported in Appendix B (Tables 28 and 29).
The results in Table 1 show that the probability of wishing to migrate is lower for all the
age classes when compared to that of individuals aged 15-19, across groups of countries.
Again for all groups of countries, the older the individuals, the lower the probability of
desiring to migrate. For instance, in middle income countries, those aged 20-24 have 9
percent lower probability than those aged 15-19 of desiring to migrate. This probability
decreases when the age increases, with those aged 65+ reaching 83 percent lower
probability of migration desire than the youngest (again in the case of middle income
countries). Overall, men have higher probability to desire to migrate than women: from
20 percent higher probability in high income countries, to 33 percent in low income
countries. Being foreign-born increases the probability of migration desire, especially in
high income countries. The presence of relatives and friends abroad is also positively
associated with the desire to move: indeed, having network in another country is related
to a 61 to 73 percent higher probability of wishing to migrate. Having children is related
to higher probability of migration desire for middle and low income countries, and to
lower probability in high income countries. Married individuals have approximately 30
percent lower probability of wishing to migrate than singles.
12
This is a dummy equal to 1 if the individual expresses the desire to move permanently abroad, and equal to 0
otherwise. Those who have answered ‘don’t know’ or ‘refused to answer’ have been recoded as missing,
thus they are taken out from the sample.
13
This is equal to 1 if those individuals wishing to migrate are also planning to move abroad, and equal to 0 if
they are neither desiring, nor planning.
14
This is equal to 1 for those individuals preparing to move, and 0 for all the others.
15
The odd ratio is the odd of the outcome (e.g. migration desire) given the fact that individuals belong to a
particular group (e.g. the group of males), compared to the odd of the outcome when the individuals
belong to the baseline group (i.e. females). An odd ratio greater than 1 indicates that, for instance, males
have higher probability than females of migration desire (while an odd ratio lower than 1 indicates a
negative association between being male and migration desire).
16
In this report, we use migration desire and migration wish interchangeably.
18
When considering the education level, those with secondary and those with tertiary
education have higher probability than individuals with primary education of expressing a
desire to migrate. There are some differences among country groups: being tertiary
educated is associated with 22 percent higher probability of wishing to move abroad with
respect of holding primary education in high income countries. This probability is higher
for other country groups, especially for middle income countries, where it reaches almost
35 percent. Regarding the labour market status, unemployed individuals have
approximately 40 percent higher probability of expressing the wish to migrate than the
employed, for all the country groups. Instead, being out of the workforce is associated
with lower desire to move abroad than being employed, for all the country groups.
Some differences among the country groups emerge when looking at per-capita income
quintiles. First, for middle and high income countries, individuals from the 2nd to the 5th
quintiles of the income distribution have lower probability than those in the 1 st quintile of
expressing a desire to migrate. The higher the income quintiles (i.e. the wealthier an
individual), the stronger the negative association between migration wish and income
becomes. In high income countries, those in the 2nd income quintile have 10 percent
lower probability than those in the poorest quintile of expressing the migration desire.
Individuals in the highest quintile have almost 20 percent lower probability of migration
desire than those in the 1st quintile. Second, for low income countries, income is not
significantly related to migration intentions in low income countries. When grouping
countries by geographical areas, we find similar results for all the covariates.
Importantly, income is not always significantly related to migration desire, except for
Africa, Asia and Europe, where those individuals in the 4th and 5th quintiles have lower
probability to desire to move abroad.
19
Table 1. Migration desire: main results, by income level groups of countries
(1) (2) (3)

High income Middle income Low income
Age 20-24 0.924** 0.910*** 0.921***
(0.0290) (0.0155) (0.0282)
Age 25-29 0.841*** 0.841*** 0.872***
(0.0281) (0.0156) (0.0290)
Age 30-34 0.764*** 0.761*** 0.759***
(0.0264) (0.0153) (0.0284)
Age 35-39 0.655*** 0.687*** 0.666***
(0.0232) (0.0147) (0.0269)
Age 40-44 0.617*** 0.613*** 0.539***
(0.0221) (0.0138) (0.0244)
Age 45-49 0.536*** 0.525*** 0.505***
(0.0197) (0.0126) (0.0248)
Age 50-54 0.452*** 0.436*** 0.390***
(0.0171) (0.0109) (0.0219)
Age 55-59 0.374*** 0.372*** 0.334***
(0.0148) (0.0106) (0.0229)
Age 60-64 0.273*** 0.286*** 0.286***
(0.0115) (0.00897) (0.0217)
Age 65+ 0.150*** 0.170*** 0.195***
(0.00596) (0.00521) (0.0135)
Having kid 0.933*** 1.053*** 1.104***
(0.0163) (0.0116) (0.0284)
Gender 1.205*** 1.260*** 1.336***
(0.0170) (0.0122) (0.0256)
Foreign-born 1.704*** 1.660*** 1.365***
(0.0380) (0.0472) (0.0729)
Network abroad 1.734*** 1.734*** 1.611***
(0.0265) (0.0172) (0.0319)
Married 0.725*** 0.700*** 0.668***
(0.0153) (0.00942) (0.0175)
Other (marital st.) 0.909*** 0.835*** 0.789***
(0.0215) (0.0141) (0.0289)
Secondary edu. 1.117*** 1.234*** 1.445***
(0.0252) (0.0140) (0.0314)
Tertiary edu. 1.222*** 1.349*** 1.280***
(0.0322) (0.0230) (0.0684)
Unemployed 1.444*** 1.418*** 1.385***
(0.0404) (0.0233) (0.0461)
Out of workforce 0.931*** 0.880*** 0.954**
(0.0169) (0.00989) (0.0206)
2nd income quint. 0.908*** 0.963** 0.963
(0.0205) (0.0149) (0.0297)
3rd income quint. 0.868*** 0.947*** 0.984
(0.0197) (0.0145) (0.0298)
4th income quint. 0.864*** 0.936*** 0.989
(0.0196) (0.0143) (0.0295)
5th income quint. 0.825*** 0.938*** 0.976
(0.0190) (0.0146) (0.0292)
Constant 0.237*** 0.432*** 0.447***
(0.0144) (0.0212) (0.0278)
Country dummies Yes Yes Yes
Year dummies Yes Yes Yes
Observations 248,785 473,276 107,127
Pseudo R2 0.1017 0.1460 0.1113
Notes. Odd ratios from logistic regressions are reported. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** denote significance
at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. Repeated cross-sections for the years from 2010 to 2015.
20
Besides the demographic and the socio-economic variables, we investigate the
relationship between migration desire and different dimensions of life satisfaction and
perceptions about economic prospects. See Table 2 below. Specifically, when including
the questions about the expectations on individual life standard, those who think that life
standard will get better have approximately 30 percent lower probability of desiring to
migrate than those who have a more pessimistic view of the future prospects, in all the
groups of countries. Those who feel satisfied with their household income have lower
probability of expressing the desire to migrate. Again, those individuals answering that
local economic conditions are getting worse have higher probability of migration desire
than those with better expectations. Overall, these findings suggest that more
dissatisfaction with life conditions, and more pessimistic view about future standards of
living and local economy, are associated with higher desire to move to another country.
Table 2. Migration desire & perceptions, by income level groups of countries
(1) (2) (3)

Local economic conditions worse 1.880*** 1.753*** 1.634***
(0.0290) (0.0179) (0.0331)
Life standard better 0.798*** 0.749*** 0.771***
(0.0130) (0.00760) (0.0150)
Household income satisfaction 0.712*** 0.777*** 0.802***
(0.0130) (0.0112) (0.0283)
Observations 248,785 473,276 107,127
at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. Repeated cross-sections for the years from 2010 to 2015. The three models
include as controls: age classes, gender, children, foreign-born, network abroad, marital status, education
level, labour market status, income quintiles, country dummies, year dummies, constant term.
4.2 Migration plan

Table 3 below shows the results for the migration plan, by grouping countries by their
income level. The results for geographical areas are shown in the Appendix B (see Tables
30 and 31).
Differently from the case of migration desire, individuals in the age groups 20-24 have
the highest probability of planning to migrate in all the groups of countries. From the age
of 40, individuals have lower probability to planning to migrate than those in the baseline
age class (i.e. 15-19). In all groups of countries, men have higher probability than
women of planning to migrate, and married individuals are less likely to plan to migrate.
Having children is associated with lower probability of migration plans in high- and
middle income countries, and with higher probability in the group of low income
countries. Foreign-born have approximately twice as high a probability of planning to
migrate than native-born, and those having network abroad approximately 3 times
higher probability than those without international connections. Importantly, these
associations are higher than in the case of migration desire.
21
Differently from the migration desire, having secondary education is associated with
higher probability of planning to migrate than having primary education in the case of
middle and low income countries only. Instead, having tertiary education is associated
with higher probability of planning to migrate in all groups of countries. Similar to the
migration desire, unemployed individuals have from 72 to 86 percent higher probability
of planning to move abroad than those in employment. Those out of the workforce have
from 13 to 21 percent lower probability of planning to migrate than those in employment.
As for the case of the desire to migrate, both in high and middle income countries
individuals in the 2nd to the 4th income quintiles have lower probability than those in the
1st quintile of planning to migrate. As for the migration wish, there is a negative, non-
linear association between migration intentions and income. For high income countries,
this negative association becomes progressively stronger the higher the income quintile
until the fourth quintile, but then weakens in the fifth quintile (those in the 2nd quintile
have 30 percent lower probability of planning to migrate, and those in the 4th quintile 40
percent lower probability, but those in the fifth have a 27 percent lower probability). This
tells us that, individuals at the bottom of the income distribution are most likely to wish
and plan to migrate, no matter the income level of the country. The assessment of the
relationship between income and intention to migrate is further complicated by the fact
that, as in the case of migration desire, this very relationship is not statistically
significant for low income countries (except for a negative relationship for the third
quintile). While one may speculate that this is due to very low income levels of this latter
set of countries, which in turn impact the very capabilities not only to migrate, but also
the aspiration to move, this remains a conjecture and further research is needed.
22
Table 3. Migration plan: main results, by income level. 2010-2015
(1) (2) (3)

Age 20-24 1.326*** 1.280*** 1.179***
(0.124) (0.0526) (0.0694)
Age 25-29 1.300*** 1.239*** 1.072
(0.131) (0.0549) (0.0696)
Age 30-34 1.078 1.140*** 0.906
(0.116) (0.0559) (0.0674)
Age 35-39 0.826* 1.009 0.728***
(0.0924) (0.0532) (0.0603)
Age 40-44 0.709*** 0.765*** 0.636***
(0.0831) (0.0438) (0.0594)
Age 45-49 0.541*** 0.632*** 0.518***
(0.0667) (0.0400) (0.0552)
Age 50-54 0.421*** 0.531*** 0.464***
(0.0556) (0.0355) (0.0555)
Age 55-59 0.368*** 0.416*** 0.420***
(0.0501) (0.0327) (0.0636)
Age 60-64 0.268*** 0.317*** 0.324***
(0.0435) (0.0290) (0.0543)
Age 65+ 0.115*** 0.198*** 0.194***
(0.0181) (0.0169) (0.0312)
Having kid 0.778*** 0.949* 1.141**
(0.0422) (0.0257) (0.0588)
Gender 1.421*** 1.491*** 1.266***
(0.0649) (0.0359) (0.0482)
Foreign-born 2.525*** 2.258*** 1.763***
(0.146) (0.132) (0.160)
Network abroad 3.503*** 3.907*** 2.704***
(0.175) (0.101) (0.107)
Married 0.488*** 0.646*** 0.597***
(0.0317) (0.0210) (0.0313)
Other (marital st.) 0.832** 0.850*** 0.844**
(0.0602) (0.0348) (0.0628)
Secondary edu. 1.094 1.258*** 1.526***
(0.0818) (0.0355) (0.0671)
Tertiary edu. 1.364*** 1.378*** 1.406***
(0.116) (0.0553) (0.127)
Unemployed 1.867*** 1.720*** 1.763***
(0.134) (0.0610) (0.103)
Out of workforce 0.869** 0.788*** 0.844***
(0.0551) (0.0227) (0.0373)
2nd income quint. 0.697*** 0.919** 0.906
(0.0488) (0.0367) (0.0565)
3rd income quint. 0.686*** 0.889*** 0.869**
(0.0487) (0.0346) (0.0536)
4th income quint. 0.591*** 0.920** 0.910
(0.0429) (0.0355) (0.0547)
5th income quint. 0.724*** 0.984 0.933
(0.0506) (0.0377) (0.0553)
Constant 0.0114*** 0.0166*** 0.0485***
(0.00237) (0.00219) (0.00588)
Observations 210,844 384,697 84,877
Pseudo R2 0.1943 0.2010 0.1535
Notes. Odd ratios from logistic regressions are reported. Robust standard errors. *,**,*** denote significance
23
When looking at individual perceptions, the results show that those individuals expecting
worse economic conditions in the area where they live are twice as likely to plan for
migration than those expecting better conditions (see Table 4 below). Instead,
individuals expecting better life standards tend to have approximately 30 percent lower
probability of planning to migrate. Income satisfaction is negatively associated with the
plan to move abroad, meaning that those more satisfied are less likely to move abroad.
Overall, these results do not differ much from those on migration desire.
Table 4. Migration plan & perceptions, by income level groups of countries
(1) (2) (3)

(0.117) (0.0519) (0.0813)
Life standard better 0.816*** 0.788*** 0.769***
(0.0410) (0.0192) (0.0298)
Household income satisfaction 0.747*** 0.889*** 0.750***
(0.0428) (0.0296) (0.0133)
Observations 210,844 384,697 84,877
at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. Repeated cross-sections for the years from 2010 to 2015. The three models
include as controls: age classes, gender, children, foreign-born, network abroad, marital status, education
level, labour market status, income quintiles, country dummies, year dummies, constant term.
4.3 Migration preparation

Table 5 below shows the results of logistic regressions on migration preparation, with
countries grouped by their income level (Tables 32 and 33 in Appendix B show the data
for geographical areas).
Overall, the results for the migration preparation are slightly different from the previous
ones on migration desire and plan. Firstly, in high income countries, age is significantly
related to migration preparation only for those aged 40 and older. Indeed, for the oldest
cohorts of individuals, the probability of preparing for the journey abroad is from 40 to
84 percent lower than for the youngest cohort (15-19). For middle and low income
countries those aged from 25-29 have the highest probability to prepare for moving
abroad. Males have higher probability of migration preparation than women, and being
married is associated with lower probability of moving. Foreigners are approximately
twice as likely to prepare for an international journey. Moreover, those having network
abroad have from 4 to 6 times higher probability of those without international
connections to prepare for migration. This association is more sizable than for cases of
migration plan and preparation.
Holding tertiary education is positively related to higher probability of preparing for the
migration journey. Indeed, the probability of those highly educated of preparing to move
is between 1.6 and 2 times higher than that of the primary educated. Importantly, the
association with tertiary education is higher than for the previous migration intentions.
The unemployed have from 38 to 56 percent higher probability than those in employment
to prepare for the migration. Instead, those out of the workforce have from 15 to 27
24
percent lower probability of preparing for the migration, except for high income countries
(where the relation is not significant).
The results for the migration preparation are also slightly different from the migration
desire and plan when considering income. In high income countries, the negative
relationship between income and intention to migrate is confirmed from the 2 nd to 4th
quintile, but this negative relationship reduces in intensity the higher the income
quintile17. The 5th quintile is not significantly related to migration preparation, differently
from the wish and plan to migrate. In middle income countries, only those in the 4 th and
5th quintile of the income distribution have significantly higher probability than those in
the bottom quintile to prepare for an international journey (15 and 38 higher probability
for the 4th and 5th quintiles, respectively). Interestingly, the sign of this relationship is the
opposite to that of the migration wish and plan, where individuals in the higher quintiles
have lower probability to express their migration intention. Migration preparation is
instead closer to the final migration decision: in middle income countries, only those in
the highest quintiles have the means to bear the migration cost 18. This different pattern
between wish and plan, on the one hand, and preparation, on the other, might be due to
the fact that the former might be interpreted as a proxy for dissatisfaction, while
preparation is rather something closer the final migration decision. Finally, in low income
countries, income is not significantly related to migration preparation, as for the case of
migration wish and plan.
These results seem to support the migration-hump hypothesis, namely the inverted U-
shaped relation between development/income and migration (Clemens 2014), both
within the middle income countries and among the three groups of countries (high,
middle, and low income). For relatively low levels of income, individuals do not have the
means to bear the migration-related costs. Instead, for intermediate levels of wealth
migration increases with respect to income, and it then tends to diminish.
When grouping countries by geographical areas, the following results should be

underlined. Age is positively and significantly related to the migration preparation only
for individuals aged below 40 for Africa, Asia, and Europe. In particular, in Africa and Asia
individuals aged 25-29 have higher probability than those in the baseline group (age 15-
19) to prepare for the migration. The highest probability is 20-24 for Europe. Being
foreign-born is positively related to the migration preparation only for the case of Africa.
Importantly, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, individuals in the 5th income quintile have
the highest propensity to prepare for the journey abroad, while in Europe those in the
highest quintiles have lower probability to express the migration preparation. Again, this
might be explained by the migration hump hypothesis. In low income countries, only the
few at the top of income ladder may face the costs of emigration, while those in more
economically advanced countries do not face the same potential gains from migration.
According to the hypothesis, it is those in the central position of the income distribution
within middle income countries who numerically constitutes the bulk of emigration
globally, as they have the incentives to emigrate as well as the means to undertake the
journey.
17
Indeed, being in the 2nd quintile is associated with 0.37 lower probability of migration preparation, being in
the 3rd with 0.33 lower probability, being in the 4th with 0.29 lower probability than those in the first quintile.
18
Being in the 2nd and 3rd income quintile is not significantly related to the migration preparation.
25
Table 5. Migration preparation: main results, by income level groups of countries
(1) (2) (3)

Age 20-24 1.153 1.367*** 1.287**
(0.168) (0.0926) (0.144)
Age 25-29 1.017 1.540*** 1.357**
(0.160) (0.110) (0.162)
Age 30-34 1.028 1.375*** 1.102
(0.170) (0.107) (0.152)
Age 35-39 0.761 1.242** 0.785
(0.130) (0.105) (0.122)
Age 40-44 0.596*** 0.889 0.890
(0.104) (0.0814) (0.152)
Age 45-49 0.411*** 0.627*** 0.690*
(0.0793) (0.0637) (0.132)
Age 50-54 0.376*** 0.603*** 0.447***
(0.0730) (0.0640) (0.105)
Age 55-59 0.299*** 0.383*** 0.449***
(0.0628) (0.0485) (0.124)
Age 60-64 0.247*** 0.361*** 0.408***
(0.0632) (0.0534) (0.129)
Age 65+ 0.158*** 0.239*** 0.236***
(0.0379) (0.0300) (0.0711)
Having kid 0.797*** 0.924* 1.031
(0.0661) (0.0382) (0.0961)
Gender 1.343*** 1.482*** 1.304***
(0.0936) (0.0554) (0.0969)
Foreign-born 2.329*** 2.639*** 1.911***
(0.206) (0.208) (0.285)
Network abroad 4.261*** 6.626*** 6.226***
(0.343) (0.305) (0.534)
Married 0.506*** 0.694*** 0.666***
(0.0496) (0.0349) (0.0616)
Other (marital st.) 0.837 0.854** 1.174
(0.0914) (0.0548) (0.158)
Secondary edu. 1.299** 1.365*** 1.622***
(0.168) (0.0639) (0.135)
Tertiary edu. 1.935*** 1.681*** 1.990***
(0.275) (0.102) (0.288)
Unemployed 1.568*** 1.496*** 1.386***
(0.176) (0.0846) (0.147)
Out of workforce 0.729*** 0.817*** 0.847**
(0.0725) (0.0373) (0.0695)
2nd income quint. 0.628*** 1.005 1.064
(0.0711) (0.0689) (0.135)
3rd income quint. 0.662*** 1.012 0.920
(0.0733) (0.0660) (0.116)
4th income quint. 0.708*** 1.153** 1.121
(0.0779) (0.0740) (0.133)
5th income quint. 0.869 1.389*** 1.189
(0.0917) (0.0865) (0.136)
Constant 0.00526*** 0.00197*** 0.00797***
(0.00156) (0.000445) (0.00177)
Observations 210,810 384,422 84,070
Pseudo R2 0.1752 0.1977 0.1687
26
The models which include the questions on perceptions and life satisfaction show that
expecting better life standards tend to decrease migration preparation, for high- and
middle income countries (while for low income countries the relation is not significant)
(Table 6). Being satisfied with household income tends to increase the preparation for
the migration journey in low income countries only. Finally, those expecting worse
economic conditions in the area where they live have from 1.5 to 2.4 times higher
probability of preparing for migration.
Table 6. Migration preparation & perceptions, by income level groups of countries. 2010-2015
(1) (2) (3)

(0.177) (0.0713) (0.115)
Life standard better 0.830** 0.837*** 1.071
(0.0613) (0.0309) (0.0789)
Household income satisfaction 0.845* 1.062 1.455***
(0.0729) (0.0489) (0.153)
Observations 210,810 384,422 84,070
Notes. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Robust standard errors. Odd ratios are reported. Repeated cross
sections for the period 2010-2015. The three models include as controls: age classes, gender, children, foreign
born, network abroad, marital status, education level, labour market status, income quintiles, country
dummies, year dummies, constant term.
27
5 Conclusion
This report provides a systematic analysis of worldwide migration intentions, namely
wishes, plans, and preparations to migrate. Summing up, these are the main findings:
 The fact that in the recent past 30 percent of the worldwide population has
expressed the wish to move abroad, while less than 1 percent have actually
migrated (Abel 2017) indicates that the migration desire greatly over-estimates
the pool of potential migrants. Despite this, the migration desire has been
extensively used both in academic and policy debates as a proxy for potential
migration (Gallup 2017a). However, and especially for policy-makers, it is upon
the preparation for migration where more attention should be paid. Those
preparing to migrate are closer to the final migration decision; hence, these are
the ones that should be best considered as potential migrants.
 The standard drivers of international migration movements are confirmed,

especially when looking at the concrete migration preparation. Being young,
male, and foreign-born tends to be associated with higher preparation for the
migration. Notably, the presence of an international network of relatives and
friends is decisive in fostering the intentions to move to another country.
Similarly, the highly educated are considerably more likely to express the desire
to move than those with primary education. This emerges as a clear pattern in all
the groups of countries, independently of their income level. Being unemployed is
also associated with higher migration preparation than being employed. This
suggests that seeking a job abroad remains an essential motivation for moving to
another country.
 Both the migration wish and plan clearly correlate with individual
perceptions and different dimensions of life satisfaction. Importantly, those
individuals satisfied with their own income and general life standards tend to have
lower probability of wishing and planning to move abroad than those more
discontent. Instead, the relation with these aspects of life satisfaction and
migration preparation is less clear and disappears for some groups of
countries. For some geographical areas, namely Africa and Latin America, the
relation goes in the opposite direction: those individuals satisfied with their
income have higher probability of preparing for the migration movement than
those dissatisfied. Finally, expecting worse economic conditions in the area where
one is living is associated with higher intentions to move abroad, for all the groups
of countries.
 The migration hump theory (Clemens 2014) is also supported by the results.
Indeed, the inverse U-shaped relationship between income and migration
preparation emerges either when comparing groups of countries (high, medium,
and low income) or within the middle income groups. In low income countries
individuals may not have the means to bear the migration costs, and indeed no
significant relation between income and migration preparation is found. For
increasing level of countries’ wealth, income is positively related to migration
preparation, with the wealthiest individuals expressing the higher migration
intentions. For high income countries the direction of the relationship is even
28
reversed: the migration preparation tends to decrease for increasing level of
individual wealth. When focussing on the group of middle income countries, we
find that individuals in the top two quintiles only are more likely to prepare the
migration journey than those in the bottom of the income distribution, thus
further supporting the migration hump argument.
To conclude, if policy-makers are interested in understanding potential migration, they

should focus on the individuals preparing for the international journey and on the
traditional drivers of migration.
29
6 Appendix A
6.1 Variables used: definition, description, and coverage

Table 7. Definition of the variables
Migration intentions
Migration wish Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country, or
would you prefer to continue living in this country? (WP1325).
Migration plan Are you planning to move permanently to another country in the next 12 months, or not? (asked
only of those who would like to move to another country). (WP10252).
Migration Have you done any preparation for this move? (asked only of those who are planning to move to
preparation another country in the next 12 months). (WP9455).
Demographic characteristics
Gender (WP1219)
Age Current age (WP1220). The Gallup World Poll surveys individuals aged 15 and older. 5-years age
classes are used.
Marital status Current marital status (WP1223). A categorical variable which takes the following values is
defined: Single, Married, Other (the category Other includes separated, divorced, widowed,
domestic partner).
Foreign-born Were you born in this country? (WP4657)
Children How many children under 15 years of age are now living in your household? (WP1230)
Network Abroad Do you have relatives or friends who are living in another country whom you can count on to
help you when you need them, or not? (WP3333)
Socio-economic characteristics
Education level What is your highest completed level of education? (WP 3117) Elementary: Completed
elementary education or less (up to eight years of basic education); Secondary: Completed some
secondary education up to three years tertiary education (nine to 15 years of education);
Tertiary: Completed four years of education beyond “high school” and/or received a four-year
college degree.
Labour market The labour market status is based on Gallup variable EMP_2010. A categorical variable taking
status the following values is defined: Employed, Unemployed, Out of Workforce. The category
Employed includes employed full time for an employer, employed full time for self, employed
part time-do not want to work full time, employed part time-want to work full time.
Individual annual Variables used: Per Capita Annual Income in International Dollars (INCOME_4); Per Capita
income Income Quintiles (INCOME_5)
Perceptions & Life evaluation
Children Do most children in this country have the opportunity to learn and grow every day? (WP 130)
Opportunities
Life Satisfaction in Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city or area where you live? (WP 83)
area you live
Local economic Right now, do you think that economic conditions in the city or area where you live, as a whole,
conditions worse are getting better or getting worse? (WP 88).
Confidence in In this country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about honesty of
elections elections? (WP 144).
Life standards better Right now, do you feel your standard of living is getting better or getting worse? (WP31). A
binary variable is defined: equal to 1 for those responding that the standard of living is getting
better, equal to 0 otherwise.
Life standard Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your standard of living, all the things you can buy and do?
satisfaction (WP 30). A binary variable is defined: equal to 1 for those responding satisfied, equal to 0
otherwise.
Household income Which one of these phrases comes closest to your own feelings about your household's income
satisfaction these days? (WP 2319) A binary variable is defined: equal to 1 for those responding Living
comfortably on present income, equal to 0 otherwise.
Notes. KCMD elaboration based on Gallup data.
30
Table 8. Groups of countries used in the analysis: by income level
Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia,
High Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Cyprus, Norway, Oman, Poland,
income Portugal, Puerto Rico, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States,
Uruguay, Venezuela.
Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Botswana,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El
Middle Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica,
income Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Mauritania, Moldova, Morocco, Lebanon, Libya,
Macedonia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Panama, Pakistan, Palestine, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rep. Congo, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia.
Afghanistan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dem. Rep
Low of the Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger,
income Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zimbabwe.
Table 9. Groups of countries used in the analysis: by geographical areas
Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad,
Comoros, Dem. Rep of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana,, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya,
Africa Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique,
Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rep. Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan,
Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, Georgia, Hong
Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia,
Asia Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South
Korea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates,
Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.
Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania,
Europe Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Northern Cyprus, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United
Kingdom.
Latin Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
America & Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Suriname,
the Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Caribbean
Northern Canada, United States.
America
Oceania Australia, New Zealand.
Notes. KCMD elaboration based on Gallup data. The World Bank classification of countries by income level is
used. Middle income includes the World Bank groups of Upper-middle income and Lower-middle income.
31
6.2 Descriptive analysis
Table 10. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the overall surveyed population and
of those who intend to migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation.
High income countries
Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

population Desire Plan Preparation
Gender (male) 0.49 0.53 0.62 0.61
(0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.49)
Average age (years) 44.47 36.44 32.87 33.09
(18.58) (15.60) (13.29) (13.19)
Foreign-born 0.13 0.15 0.29 0.28
(0.34) (0.36) (0.45) (0.45)
Having kid 0.36 0.39 0.37 0.36
(0.48) (0.49) (0.48) (0.48)
Marital status
Single 0.28 0.42 0.51 0.50
(0.45) (0.49) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.52 0.41 0.34 0.34
(0.50) (0.49) (0.47) (0.47)
Other 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.16
(0.39) (0.37) (0.36) (0.37)
Network abroad 0.23 0.37 0.59 0.64
(0.42) (0.48) (0.49) (0.48)
Education level
Primary 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.10
(0.39) (0.37) (0.34) (0.31)
Secondary 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.55
(0.49) (0.48) (0.49) (0.50)
Tertiary 0.20 0.22 0.29 0.34
(0.38) (0.41) (0.45) (0.47)
Employment status
Employed 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.65
(0.50) (0.49) (0.50) (0.48)
Unemployed 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.12
(0.23) (0.28) (0.34) (0.32)
Out of the workforce 0.39 0.31 0.26 0.23
(0.49) (0.46) (0.44) (0.42)
Income
Individual annual
60057.24 14811.91 14706.53 17413.27
income (Int.l$)
(1.45e07) (64832.15) (47376.01) (71796.44)
Notes. KCMD elaboration based on Gallup World Poll Survey (2010-2015 waves).
32
Middle income countries

Gender (male) 0.49 0.54 0.59 0.60
(0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.49)
(16.65) (13.66) (12.53) (12.35)
Foreign-born 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06
(0.15) (0.18) 0.21 (0.24)
Having kid 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.58
(0.49) (0.48) (0.48) (0.49)
Marital status
Single 0.33 0.48 0.51 0.51
(0.47) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.53 0.39 0.53 0.36
(0.50) (0.49) (0.48) (0.48)
Other 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12
(0.34) (0.33) (0.33) (0.33)
Network abroad 0.30 0.46 0.67 0.79
(0.46) (0.50) (0.47) (0.41)
Education level
Primary 0.46 0.36 0.34 0.28
(0.50) (0.48) (0.47) (0.45)
Secondary 0.45 0.53 0.53 0.54
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Tertiary 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.18
(0.28) (0.31) (0.34) (0.39)
Employment status
Employed 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.56
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Unemployed 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.14
(0.27) (0.33) (0.37) (0.35)
(0.49) (0.49) (0.47) (0.46)
Income
Individual annual
2798.22 2803.26 3059.73 3895.21
income (Int.l$)
(6198.38) (8222.97) (11313.76) (6836)
33
Low income countries

Gender (male) 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.56
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(15.54) (12.65) (12.31) (12.43)
Foreign-born 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(0.15) (0.17) (0.20) (0.22)
Having kid 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.81
(0.38) (0.37) (0.36) (0.39)
Marital status
Single 0.33 0.48 0.49 0.49
(0.47) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.54 0.42 0.40 0.39
(0.50) (0.49) (0.49) (0.49)
Other 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.12
(0.34) (0.30) (0.31) (0.33)
Network abroad 0.33 0.41 0.56 0.77
(0.47) (0.49) (0.50) (0.42)
Education level
Primary 0.74 0.62 0.59 0.48
(0.44) (0.49) (0.49) (0.50)
Secondary 0.24 0.36 0.38 0.45
(0.43) (0.48) (0.49) (0.50)
Tertiary 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06
(0.13) (0.16) (0.19) (0.24)
Employment status
Employed 0.59 0.56 0.56 0.60
(0.49) (0.50) (0.50) (0.48)
Unemployed 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.13
(0.27) (0.31) (0.35) (12.10)
(0.47) (0.47) (0.46) (0.45)
Income
Individual annual
807.03 872.63 888.80 1249.86
income (Int.l$)
(2823.07) (2452.70) (1973.57) (2687.79)
34
Africa

Gender (male) 0.49 0.55 0.57 0.57
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49)
(15.57) (12.21) (11.87) (11.74)
Foreign-born 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07
(0.15) (0.17) (0.22) (0.25)
Having kid 2.47 2.47 2.65 2.31
(2.51) (2.51) (2.71) (2.54)
Marital status
Single 0.39 0.55 0.54 0.55
(0.49) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.47 0.34 0.35 0.34
(0.50) (0.47) (0.48) (0.48)
Other 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10
(0.34) (0.30) (0.30) (0.29)
Network abroad 0.32 0.41 0.59 0.79
(0.47) (0.49) (0.50) (0.41)
Education level
Primary 0.63 0.52 0.51 0.40
(0.48) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49)
Secondary 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.51
(0.47) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Tertiary 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.09
(0.18) (0.19) (0.22) (0.28)
Employment status
Employed 0.53 0.52 0.54 0.58
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49)
Unemployed 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.15
(0.29) (0.33) (0.36) (0.35)
(0.48) (0.48) (0.46) (0.44)
Income
Individual annual
1390.14 1445.23 1609.76 2242.47
income (Int.l$)
(6388.64) (9273.15) (12281.9) (5235.73)
35
Asia

Gender (male) 0.50 0.56 0.66 0.68
(0.50) (0.50) (0.47) (0.47)
(16.35) (13.93) (12.57) (12.12)
Foreign-born 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.16
(0.26) (0.29) (0.36) (0.37)
Having kid 1.44 1.50 1.69 1.61
(1.80) (1.92) (2.17) (2.07)
Marital status
Single 0.29 0.42 0.46 0.45
(0.45) ().49) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.64 0.52 0.48 0.49
(0.48) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Other 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06
(0.26) (0.23) (0.24) (0.24)
Network abroad 0.22 0.36 0.56 0.67
(0.42) (0.48) (0.50) (0.47)
Education level
Primary 0.42 0.31 0.27 0.22
(0.49) (0.46) (0.45) (0.42)
Secondary 0.45 0.51 0.50 0.50
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Tertiary 0.13 0.18 0.22 0.27
(0.33) (0.38) (0.42) (0.44)
Employment status
Employed 0.52 0.51 0.53 0.59
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49)
Unemployed 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.10
(0.24) (0.29) (0.37) (0.31)
(0.49) (0.49) (0.47) (0.46)
Income
Individual annual
6047.09 6403.48 7684.51 9398.33
income (Int.l$)
(17270.14) (15318.99) (19271.62) (26083.98)
36
Europe.

Gender (male) 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.55
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(18.65) (15.63) (13.68) (13.70)
Foreign-born 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.11
(0.26) (0.28) (0.33) (0.32)
Having kid 0.50 0.61 0.57 0.49
(0.92) (1.00) (1.08) (1.11)
Marital status
Single 0.25 0.40 0.50 0.49
(0.43) (0.49) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.53 0.43 0.34 0.34
(0.50) (0.50) (0.48) (0.47)
Other 0.21 0.16 0.49 0.17
(0.41) (0.37) (0.50) (0.38)
Network abroad 0.26 0.43 0.66 0.71
(0.44) (0.50) (0.47) (0.45)
Education level
Primary 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.18
(0.41) (0.42) (0.41) (0.38)
Secondary 0.62 0.61 0.58 0.57
(0.49) (0.49) (0.50) (0.50)
Tertiary 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.25
(0.37) (0.37) (0.40) (0.44)
Employment status
Employed 0.54 0.57 0.54 0.56
(0.50) (0.49) (0.50) (0.50)
Unemployed 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.15
(0.23) (0.30) (0.37) (0.36)
(0.49) (0.47) (0.45) (0.45)
Income
Individual annual
14279.22 10661.34 9338.13 10748.68
income (Int.l$)
(76895.85) (31095.96) (44850.9) (66855.52)
37
of those who intend to migrate. Latin America and Caribbean

Gender (male) 0.48 0.51 0.57 0.56
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(17.33) (14.16) (13.28) (13.21)
Foreign-born 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04
(0.13) (0.14) (0.20) (0.21)
Having kid 1.21 1.32 1.35 1.31
(1.40) (1.42) (1.48) (1.53)
Marital status
Single 0.37 0.49 0.52 0.52
(0.48) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.34 0.24 0.23 0.23
(0.47) (0.43) (0.42) (0.42)
Other 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.25
(0.45) (0.44) (0.44) (0.43)
Network abroad 0.44 0.60 0.80 0.88
(0.50) (0.49) (0.40) (0.33)
Education level
Primary 0.38 0.31 0.28 0.24
(0.48) (0.46) (0.45) (0.43)
Secondary 0.51 0.52 0.55 0.53
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Tertiary 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.22
(0.32) (0.34) (0.35) (0.42)
Employment status
Employed 0.52 0.52 0.57 0.59
(0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.49)
Unemployed 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.14
(0.28) (0.33) (0.36) (0.35)
(0.49) (0.48) (0.44) (0.45)
Income
Individual annual
3087.89 2749.32 2906.86 3552.16
income (Int.l$)
(5186.91) (4885.10) (4678.55) (5664.12)
38
Northern America

Gender (male) 0.49 0.52 0.78 0.85
(0.50) (0.50) (0.42) (0.37)
(19.27) (16.70) (16.47) (12.31)
Foreign-born 0.13 0.18 0.20 0.22
(0.33) (0.38) (0.40) 0.43
Having kid 0.64 0.68 0.94 1.29
(1.11) (1.12) (1.40) (1.48)
Marital status
Single 0.30 0.43 0.46 0.11
(0.46) (0.50) (0.50) (0.31)
Married 0.49 0.38 0.22 0.52
(0.50) (0.49) (0.42) (0.52)
Other 0.21 0.19 0.32 0.38
(0.41) (0.39) (0.47) (0.51)
Network abroad 0.16 0.25 0.28 0.52
(0.36) (0.43) (0.45) (0.52)
Education level
Primary 0.09 0.07 0.07 -
(0.28) (0.26) (0.26) -
Secondary 0.65 0.66 0.69 0.58
(0.48) (0.47) (0.47) (0.51)
Tertiary 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.42
(0.44) (0.44) (0.43) (0.51)
Employment status
Employed 0.64 0.68 0.62 0.89
(0.48) ().47) (0.49) (0.33)
Unemployed 0.05 0.09 0.05 -
(0.23) (0.28) (0.23) -
(0.46) (0.42) (0.47) (0.33)
Income
Individual annual
1036345 45241.58 16847.22 16193.65
income (Int.l$)
(6.97e+07) (407735.4) (24500.15) (24029.69)
39
Oceania

Gender (male) 0.47 0.50 0.56 0.56
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(18.99) (15.94) (13.29) (12.78)
Foreign-born 0.25 0.30 0.41 0.38
(0.43) (0.46) (0.50) (0.49)
Having kid 0.70 0.81 0.83 0.77
(1.11) (1.11) (0.07) (0.96)
Marital status
Single 0.27 0.46 0.48 0.42
(0.44) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Married 0.52 0.34 0.31 0.35
(0.50) (0.48) (0.47) (0.48)
Other 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.23
(0.41) (0.40) (0.41) (0.43)
Network abroad 0.27 0.35 0.57 0.57
(0.44) (0.48) (0.50) (0.50)
Education level
Primary 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.06
(0.28) (0.28) (0.21) (0.24)
Secondary 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.67
(0.45) (0.45) (0.45) (0.48)
Tertiary 0.20 0.18 0.23 0.27
(0.40) (0.39) (0.42) (0.45)
Employment status
Employed 0.66 0.69 0.75 0.83
(0.47) (0.46) (0.44) (0.38)
Unemployed 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.10
(0.22) (0.30) (0.35) (0.31)
(0.45) (0.41) (0.31) (0.26)
Income
Individual annual
21506.64 18408 21250.06 21189.93
income (Int.l$)
(22802.31) (18299.96) (29230.11) (22079.79)
40
Table 19. Perceptions of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend to migrate.
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. High income countries

Life standard satisfaction 0.73 0.63 0.58 0.61
(0.45) (0.48) (0.49) (0.49)
Life satisfaction in area you live 0.87 0.73 0.66 0.66
(0.34) (0.44) (0.47) (0.47)
Household income satisfaction 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.28
(0.44) (0.42) (0.43)
Children opportunities 0.81 0.73 0.68 0.69
(0.39) (0.47) (0.47) (0.46)
Confidence in elections 0.59 0.56 0.41 0.43
(0.49) (0.50) (0.49) (0.49)
Expectations
Life standard will get better 0.30 0.33 0.39 0.40
(0.46) (0.47) (0.49) (0.49)
Local economic conditions will get worse 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.43
(0.26) (0.49) (0.50) (0.50)
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Middle income countries

(0.49) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.43) (0.49) (0.50) (0.49)
(0.35) (0.33) (0.37) (0.41)
(0.47) (0.49) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.50) (0.47) (0.47) (0.46)
Expectations
Life standard will get better 0.45 0.41 0.44 0.46
(0.50) (0.49) (0.50) (0.50)
Local economic conditions will get worse 0.28 0.40 0.45 0.42
(0.45) (0.49) (0.50) (0.49)
41
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Low income countries

Life satisfaction
(0.49) (0.47) (0.48) (0.50)
(0.47) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.26) (0.25) (0.28) (0.36)
(0.49) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.59) (0.48) (0.48) (0.47)
Expectations
Life standard better 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.54
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Local economic conditions worse 0.33 0.42 0.47 0.39
(0.47) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49)
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Africa

(0.50) (0.49) (0.49) (0.50)
(0.48) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.48) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.31) (0.30) (0.33) (0.40)
(0.50) (0.49) (0.49) (0.48)
Expectations
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.47) (0.50) (0.50) (0.48)
42
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Asia

Life satisfaction
(0.48) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.39) (0.46) (0.48) (0.48)
(0.43) (0.48) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.39) (0.36) (0.39) (0.42)
(0.50) (0.47) (0.44) (0.44)
Expectations
(0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.49)
(0.40) (0.47) (0.49) (0.49)
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Europe

Life satisfaction
(0.49) (0.50) (0.48) (0.50)
(0.37) (0.47) (0.547) (0.49)
(0.43) (0.47) (0.50) (0.49)
(0.42) (0.39) (0.36) (0.41)
(0.50) (0.50) (0.47) (0.47)
Expectations
(0.42) (0.44) (0.50) (0.47)
(0.47) (0.50) (0.49) (0.50)
Notes. KCMD elaboration based on Gallup World Poll Survey (2010-2015 waves)
43
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Latin America & the Caribbean

Life satisfaction
(0.46) (0.48) (0.48) (0.47)
(0.40) (0.45) (0.47) (0.47)
(0.49) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.34) (0.33) (0.36) (0.41)
(0.49) (0.46) (0.46) (0.46)
Expectations
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49)
(0.45) (0.49) (0.49) (0.49)
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Northern America

Life satisfaction
(0.40) (0.46) (0.46) (0.48)
(0.34) (0.45) (0.50) (0.52)
(0.35) (0.44) (0.50) (0.39)
(0.50) (0.47) (0.46) (0.52)
(0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.53)
Expectations
(0.50) (0.50) (0.51) (0.48)
(0.41) (0.44) (0.51) (0.52)
44
Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Oceania

(0.40) (0.44) (0.47) (0.44)
(0.30) (0.44) (0.47) (0.48)
(0.29) (0.36) (0.35) (0.38)
(0.50) (0.47) (0.48) (0.49)
(0.50) (0.48) (0.50) (0.50)
Expectations
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
(0.46) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
45
7 Appendix B
Table 28. Migration desire: main results, by geographical areas.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Africa Asia Europe Latin North Oceania
America America
& Caribbean
Age 20-24 0.904*** 0.977 0.906*** 0.844*** 1.225 1.368
(0.0202) (0.0246) (0.0297) (0.0288) (0.298) (0.266)
Age 25-29 0.833*** 0.936** 0.797*** 0.768*** 1.419 1.366
(0.0200) (0.0261) (0.0277) (0.0279) (0.350) (0.323)
Age 30-34 0.724*** 0.915*** 0.685*** 0.696*** 0.995 0.928
(0.0194) (0.0275) (0.0248) (0.0269) (0.256) (0.222)
Age 35-39 0.621*** 0.814*** 0.605*** 0.645*** 0.956 0.805
(0.0184) (0.0258) (0.0224) (0.0259) (0.261) (0.185)
Age 40-44 0.504*** 0.738*** 0.571*** 0.591*** 0.883 0.821
(0.0167) (0.0243) (0.0213) (0.0248) (0.234) (0.191)
Age 45-49 0.425*** 0.664*** 0.490*** 0.528*** 0.665 0.715
(0.0154) (0.0233) (0.0186) (0.0232) (0.184) (0.161)
Age 50-54 0.325*** 0.555*** 0.404*** 0.472*** 0.651 0.548***
(0.0133) (0.0206) (0.0157) (0.0214) (0.178) (0.128)
Age 55-59 0.302*** 0.478*** 0.319*** 0.399*** 0.802 0.633*
(0.0148) (0.0203) (0.0128) (0.0208) (0.216) (0.155)
Age 60-64 0.230*** 0.385*** 0.230*** 0.315*** 0.384*** 0.419***
(0.0128) (0.0177) (0.00977) (0.0181) (0.116) (0.109)
Age 65+ 0.178*** 0.238*** 0.114*** 0.197*** 0.244*** 0.268***
(0.00923) (0.0109) (0.00464) (0.0101) (0.0696) (0.0642)
Children 1.081*** 1.011 0.978 1.055** 0.827 1.068
(0.0182) (0.0164) (0.0173) (0.0223) (0.106) (0.135)
Gender 1.360*** 1.321*** 1.180*** 1.111*** 1.175 0.997
(0.0189) (0.0190) (0.0166) (0.0210) (0.121) (0.0966)
Foreign-born 1.588*** 1.963*** 1.481*** 1.527*** 1.654*** 1.370***
(0.0671) (0.0560) (0.0394) (0.101) (0.238) (0.142)
Network abroad 1.619*** 1.726*** 1.626*** 2.029*** 1.473*** 1.546***
(0.0233) (0.0258) (0.0239) (0.0386) (0.189) (0.227)
Married 0.631*** 0.725*** 0.747*** 0.745*** 0.737** 0.521***
(0.0119) (0.0146) (0.0162) (0.0192) (0.103) (0.0800)
Other (marital st.) 0.763*** 0.893*** 0.919*** 0.891*** 1.008 0.881
(0.0197) (0.0289) (0.0225) (0.0221) (0.162) (0.136)
Secondary edu. 1.343*** 1.320*** 1.036* 1.249*** 1.175 0.934
(0.0208) (0.0236) (0.0218) (0.0281) (0.306) (0.161)
Tertiary edu. 1.270*** 1.638*** 1.065** 1.292*** 1.214 0.767
(0.0381) (0.0386) (0.0271) (0.0444) (0.327) (0.149)
Unemployed 1.343*** 1.400*** 1.539*** 1.408*** 1.275 1.495**
(0.0305) (0.0359) (0.0420) (0.0447) (0.252) (0.275)
Out of workforce 0.854*** 0.904*** 0.977 0.879*** 1.098 0.757**
(0.0137) (0.0148) (0.0175) (0.0190) (0.149) (0.103)
2nd income quint. 0.972 0.988 0.881*** 0.997 0.867 0.934
(0.0220) (0.0222) (0.0197) (0.0298) (0.146) (0.139)
3rd income quint. 0.984 0.937*** 0.849*** 1.033 0.914 0.758*
(0.0218) (0.0208) (0.0192) (0.0305) (0.152) (0.119)
4th income quint. 0.989 0.949** 0.827*** 0.988 0.982 0.905
(0.0217) (0.0210) (0.0187) (0.0296) (0.164) (0.140)
5th income quint. 0.939*** 1.033 0.777*** 0.963 0.803 0.726*
(0.0207) (0.0229) (0.0178) (0.0305) (0.138) (0.123)
Constant 0.503*** 0.394*** 0.834*** 0.218*** 0.145*** 0.290***
(0.0262) (0.0186) (0.0445) (0.0143) (0.0480) (0.0821)
Year dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Country dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Observations 195,409 292,711 216,232 108,887 7,857 8,092
Pseudo R2 0.1107 0.1358 0.1210 0.1241 0.0540 0.0971
46
Table 29. Migration desire & perceptions, by geographical Areas
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Africa Asia Europe Latin America North Oceania
& Caribbean America
Local economic 1.677*** 1.801*** 1.835*** 1.728*** 1.771*** 1.934***
conditions worse
(0.0243) (0.0287) (0.0269) (0.0340) (0.226) (0.194)
Life standard 0.752*** 0.771*** 0.755*** 0.807*** 0.578*** 0.594***
better
(0.0105) (0.0116) (0.0126) (0.0155) (0.0656) (0.0631)
Household income 0.795*** 0.776*** 0.692*** 0.852*** 0.581*** 0.479***
satisfaction
(0.0180) (0.0152) (0.0134) (0.0239) (0.0662) (0.0522)
Observations 195,409 292,711 216,232 108,887 7,857 8,092
sections for the period 2010-2015. The three models include as controls: age classes, gender, children,
foreign-born, network abroad, marital status, education level, labour market status, income quintiles,
country dummies, year dummies, constant term.
47
Table 30. Migration plan: main results, by geographical areas
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

& Caribbean America
Age 20-24 1.198*** 1.389*** 1.573*** 0.995 7.246** 2.586*
(0.0551) (0.0916) (0.146) (0.0793) (7.199) (1.258)
Age 25-29 1.131** 1.410*** 1.453*** 1.002 1.369 1.667
(0.0555) (0.103) (0.146) (0.0869) (1.334) (1.020)
Age 30-34 0.977 1.343*** 1.099 0.947 3.564 2.037
(0.0549) (0.107) (0.118) (0.0887) (3.974) (1.310)
Age 35-39 0.805*** 1.112 1.011 0.795** 8.407** 1.060
(0.0507) (0.0946) (0.113) (0.0787) (8.270) (0.643)
Age 40-44 0.648*** 0.908 0.711*** 0.712*** 7.388* 0.112**
(0.0456) (0.0841) (0.0812) (0.0748) (7.991) (0.102)
Age 45-49 0.486*** 0.870 0.534*** 0.602*** 0.619 0.736
(0.0406) (0.0859) (0.0648) (0.0664) (0.673) (0.502)
Age 50-54 0.412*** 0.771** 0.392*** 0.532*** 0.215 0.478
(0.0376) (0.0817) (0.0497) (0.0628) (0.289) (0.318)
Age 55-59 0.431*** 0.544*** 0.306*** 0.369*** 2.639 1.162
(0.0471) (0.0678) (0.0408) (0.0539) (2.491) (0.720)
Age 60-64 0.321*** 0.502*** 0.184*** 0.323*** - -
(0.0395) (0.0717) (0.0304) (0.0511)
Age 65+ 0.200*** 0.256*** 0.0900*** 0.211*** 0.124* 0.209**
(0.0248) (0.0362) (0.0134) (0.0300) (0.142) (0.146)
Having kid 1.010 0.885*** 0.832*** 1.003 0.482 1.241
(0.0353) (0.0384) (0.0455) (0.0509) (0.253) (0.444)
Gender 1.337*** 1.852*** 1.310*** 1.259*** 4.750*** 1.376
(0.0384) (0.0748) (0.0573) (0.0573) (2.373) (0.395)
Foreign-born 2.164*** 2.070*** 2.326*** 2.856*** 1.599 1.941**
(0.150) (0.133) (0.167) (0.349) (0.751) (0.539)
Network abroad 2.978*** 3.639*** 3.713*** 4.939*** 2.457 3.418***
(0.0890) (0.148) (0.181) (0.279) (1.463) (1.596)
Married 0.579*** 0.632*** 0.583*** 0.665*** 0.490 0.570
(0.0230) (0.0324) (0.0368) (0.0424) (0.357) (0.269)
Other (marital st.) 0.747*** 1.078 0.956 0.840*** 1.650 0.894
(0.0413) (0.0934) (0.0676) (0.0502) (1.083) (0.432)
Secondary edu. 1.430*** 1.285*** 1.027 1.218*** 0.726 1.768
(0.0464) (0.0633) (0.0667) (0.0702) (0.686) (1.002)
Tertiary edu. 1.430*** 1.549*** 1.176** 1.354*** 1.151 1.808
(0.0822) (0.0952) (0.0914) (0.108) (1.065) (1.133)
Unemployed 1.646*** 1.586*** 2.407*** 1.635*** 0.918 1.864
(0.0704) (0.0946) (0.161) (0.112) (0.880) (0.863)
Out of workforce 0.741*** 0.887*** 1.053 0.712*** 2.679* 0.498
(0.0256) (0.0403) (0.0619) (0.0400) (1.439) (0.212)
2nd income quint. 0.928 0.882** 0.751*** 0.894 0.632 0.715
(0.0445) (0.0550) (0.0510) (0.0685) (0.379) (0.331)
3rd income quint. 0.923* 0.823*** 0.726*** 0.899 0.431 0.333**
(0.0433) (0.0502) (0.0505) (0.0671) (0.343) (0.169)
4th income quint. 0.928 0.848*** 0.672*** 0.957 0.362** 0.649
(0.0428) (0.0515) (0.0471) (0.0708) (0.185) (0.291)
5th income quint. 0.945 1.032 0.693*** 1.027 0.378 0.690
(0.0428) (0.0611) (0.0474) (0.0790) (0.236) (0.325)
Constant 0.0463*** 0.0264*** 0.0087*** 0.0087*** 0.0017*** 0.0108***
(0.00490) (0.00330) (0.00184) (0.00177) (0.00280) (0.00942)
Observations 152,332 252,639 174,927 85,931 6,477 5,865
Pseudo R2 0.1506 0.2049 0.2229 0.1775 0.2060 0.1875
48
at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. Repeated cross-sections for the years from 2010 to 2015. In columns
(5) and (6) Age 60-6 is dropped because it predicts the outcome (migration preparation) perfectly.
Table 31. Migration plan & perceptions, by geographical areas
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

& Caribbean America
Local economic 2.148*** 2.165*** 2.536*** 1.920*** 4.761*** 2.271***
conditions worse
(0.0626) (0.0902) (0.114) (0.0885) (2.052) (0.621)
Life standard 0.746*** 0.822*** 0.801*** 0.834*** 0.343** 0.978
better
(0.0214) (0.0336) (0.0389) (0.0389) (0.152) (0.304)
Household income 0.982 0.793*** 0.727*** 0.944 0.834 0.605
satisfaction
(0.0447) (0.0394) (0.0437) (0.0602) (0.398) (0.194)
Observations 152,332 252,639 174,927 85,931 6,477 5,865
49
Table 32. Migration preparation: main results, by geographical areas
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

& Caribbean America
Age 20-24 1.265*** 1.440*** 1.347** 1.223 - 1.201
(0.107) (0.166) (0.179) (0.151) (0.879)
Age 25-29 1.423*** 1.781*** 1.100 1.340** 0.445 1.767
(0.123) (0.220) (0.159) (0.180) (0.681) (1.253)
Age 30-34 1.221** 1.544*** 1.094 1.154 2.001 2.735
(0.120) (0.204) (0.167) (0.168) (2.430) (2.065)
Age 35-39 0.993 1.405** 0.958 0.920 0.816 0.594
(0.109) (0.196) (0.156) (0.145) (1.191) (0.506)
Age 40-44 0.892 1.043 0.608*** 0.799 0.680 0.0711**
(0.108) (0.156) (0.100) (0.134) (0.843) (0.0850)
Age 45-49 0.452*** 0.951 0.380*** 0.704** 0.431 0.631
(0.0715) (0.151) (0.0696) (0.120) (0.477) (0.509)
Age 50-54 0.359*** 0.927 0.312*** 0.728* - 0.412
(0.0593) (0.154) (0.0595) (0.129) (0.304)
Age 55-59 0.392*** 0.687** 0.168*** 0.435*** 1.751 0.792
(0.0811) (0.131) (0.0349) (0.0937) (1.962) (0.559)
Age 60-64 0.361*** 0.625** 0.145*** 0.443*** - -
(0.0829) (0.134) (0.0369) (0.116)
Age 65+ 0.262*** 0.322*** 0.0937*** 0.287*** 0.0895 0.224*
(0.0548) (0.0710) (0.0203) (0.0591) (0.144) (0.182)
Having kid 0.956 0.993 0.649*** 1.069 0.628 1.155
(0.0550) (0.0682) (0.0531) (0.0824) (0.494) (0.546)
Gender 1.376*** 1.899*** 1.238*** 1.193** 13.43*** 1.267
(0.0704) (0.122) (0.0785) (0.0836) (9.259) (0.503)
Foreign-born 2.735*** 2.166*** 2.186*** 2.668*** 1.321 1.586
(0.269) (0.213) (0.231) (0.458) (0.854) (0.561)
Network abroad 7.026*** 5.262*** 4.732*** 7.747*** 7e+06*** 2.734
(0.437) (0.365) (0.358) (0.812) (6.788e+06) (1.689)
Married 0.651*** 0.650*** 0.683*** 0.644*** 2.768 0.700
(0.0435) (0.0517) (0.0640) (0.0633) (2.464) (0.423)
Other (marital st.) 0.909 1.081 1.061 0.750*** 13.03*** 1.039
(0.0887) (0.144) (0.108) (0.0705) (10.76) (0.659)
Secondary edu. 1.585*** 1.361*** 1.230** 1.274*** 0.581 1.074
(0.0917) (0.112) (0.126) (0.115) (0.368) (0.718)
Tertiary edu. 1.938*** 1.816*** 1.697*** 1.571*** baseline 1.251
(0.171) (0.178) (0.200) (0.182) group (0.951)
Unemployed 1.309*** 1.311*** 2.139*** 1.457*** - 1.029
(0.0968) (0.126) (0.213) (0.160) (0.712)
Out of workforce 0.697*** 0.831** 1.079 0.801** 0.607 0.203**
(0.0428) (0.0616) (0.0921) (0.0698) (0.550) (0.153)
2nd income quint. 1.108 0.918 0.706*** 0.991 0.754 0.297*
(0.105) (0.0976) (0.0739) (0.127) (0.808) (0.219)
3rd income quint. 1.036 0.942 0.691*** 1.070 0.124* 0.263*
(0.0949) (0.0952) (0.0723) (0.131) (0.148) (0.186)
4th income quint. 1.157* 1.018 0.826* 1.258* 0.127** 0.696
(0.102) (0.103) (0.0830) (0.150) (0.129) (0.395)
5th income quint. 1.337*** 1.378*** 0.824** 1.548*** 0.0859*** 0.562
(0.114) (0.134) (0.0811) (0.186) (0.0760) (0.325)
Constant 0.007*** 0.0056*** 0.0025*** 0.0022*** 3.1e-10*** 0.0107***
(0.00122) (0.00116) (0.000808) (0.000662) (5.29e-10) (0.00970)
Observations 151,383 252,547 174,879 85,904 4,936 5,865
Pseudo R2 0.1789 0.1891 0.2051 0.1771 0.3315 0.1729
50
at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. Repeated cross-sections for the years from 2010 to 2015. In column
(5), Age 20-24, Age 50-54, Age 60-64, Unemployed, Primary education are dropped because they predict
the outcome (migration preparation) perfectly. The baseline comparison group for education is Tertiary
(instead of Primary). Similarly, in column (6), Age 60-64 is dropped.
Table 33. Migration preparation & perceptions, by geographical areas
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

& Caribbean America
Local economic 1.608*** 2.330*** 2.279*** 1.767*** 3.759** 3.219***

conditions worse
(0.0833) (0.148) (0.146) (0.125) (2.476) (1.110)
Life standard 0.891** 0.766*** 0.890* 0.977 1.170 0.842
better
(0.0441) (0.0479) (0.0611) (0.0714) (0.662) (0.360)
Household income 1.233*** 0.919 0.873* 1.218** 1.090 0.546
satisfaction
(0.0834) (0.0659) (0.0712) (0.109) (0.733) (0.228)
Observations 151,383 252,547 174,879 85,904 4,936 5,865
51
8 References
Abel, Guy J. (2017). ‘Estimates of Global Bilateral Migration Flows by Gender between
1960 and 2015’, International Migration Review,
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/imre.12327 (Accessed February 15, 2018).
Bertoli, Simone, and Ilse Ruyssen (2016). ‘Networks and Migrants’ Intended Destination’,
Unpublished.
Carling, Jørgen, and Kerilyn Schewel (2017a). ‘Revisiting aspiration and ability in
international migration’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–19.
Carling, Jørgen, and Kerilyn Schewel (2017b). ‘Revisiting aspiration and ability in
international migration’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–19.
Castles, Stephen, Hein de Haas, and Mark J. Miller (2014). The Age of Migration.
International Population Movement in the Modern World. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Clemens, Michael A. (2014). ‘Does development reduce migration?’, International

Handbook on Migration and Economic Development,, 152.
Dao, Thu Hien, Frédéric Docquier, Chris Parsons, and Giovanni Peri (2018). ‘Migration
and development: Dissecting the anatomy of the mobility transition’, Journal of
Development Economics, 132, 88–101.
De Haas, Hein (2010). ‘Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective’,

International Migration Review, 44:1, 227–264.
Docquier, Frédéric, Giovanni Peri, and Ilse Ruyssen (2014). ‘The Cross-country
Determinants of Potential and Actual Migration’, International Migration Review,
48, S37–S99.
Dustmann, Christian, and Anna Okatenko (2014). ‘Out-migration, wealth constraints, and
the quality of local amenities’, Land and Property Rights, 110, 52–63.
Esipova, Neli, Julie Ray, and Anita Pugliese (2011). ‘The Many Faces of Global Migration’,
Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM).
Gallup (2017a). ‘Number of Potential Migrants Worldwide Tops 700 Million’, Gallup.com,
http://news.gallup.com/poll/211883/number-potential-migrants-worldwide-tops-
700-million.aspx (Accessed March 19, 2018).
Gallup (2017b). ‘Worldwide Research Methodology and Codebook’, https://data-

services.hosting.nyu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/World_Poll_Methodology_102717.pdf.
Gubert, Flore, and Jean-Noël Senne (2016). ‘Is the European Union attractive for
potential migrants?’, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-
health/is-the-european-union-attractive-for-potential-migrants_5jlwxbv76746-en
(Accessed February 14, 2018).
52
Ivlevs, Artjoms (2014). ‘Happiness and the emigration decision’, IZA World of Labor,
http://wol.iza.org/articles/happiness-and-the-emigration-decision (Accessed
February 14, 2018).
Laczko, Frank, Jasper Tjaden, and Daniel Auer (2017). ‘Measuring Global Migration
Potential, 2010–2015’, GMDAC Data Briefing, IOM https://gmdac.iom.int/gmdac-
data-briefing-measuring-global-migration-potential-2010-2015.
Manchin, Miriam, and Sultan Orazbayev (2016). ‘Social Networks and the Intention to
Migrate’, Centro Studi Luca d’Agliano Development Studies Working Paper No.
409 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2974097.
OECD (2013). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. OECD Publishing

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-guidelines-on-measuring-
subjective-well-being_9789264191655-en (Accessed March 6, 2018).
Ruyssen, Ilse, and Sara Salomone (2018). ‘Female migration: A way out of
discrimination?’, Journal of Development Economics, 130, 224–241.
Xenogiani, Theodora, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and

Agence française de développement, eds. (2015). Connecting with emigrants: a
global profile of diasporas, 2015. Paris: OECD.
53
List of figures
Figure 1. Intentions to migrate by income-level. Average for 2010-2015 ...................... 9
Figure 2. Intentions to migrate by geographical area. Average for 2010-2015 ..............10
Figure 3. Intentions to migrate, 2010-2015 .............................................................11
Figure 4. Demographic characteristics of the overall surveyed population and of those

who intend to migrate. Average for 2010-2015 ........................................................12
Figure 5. Education level of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend to
migrate. Average for 2010-2015 ............................................................................13
Figure 6. Labour Market status of the overall surveyed population and of those who
intend to migrate. Average for 2010-2015 ...............................................................14
Figure 7. Individual income of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend to
migrate. Average for 2010-2015 ............................................................................15
Figure 8. Satisfactions and expectations of the overall surveyed population and of those
who intend to migrate. Average for 2010-2015 ........................................................17
54
List of tables
Table 1. Migration desire: main results, by income level groups of countries ................20
Table 2. Migration desire & perceptions, by income level groups of countries ...............21
Table 3. Migration plan: main results, by income level. 2010-2015 .............................23
Table 4. Migration plan & perceptions, by income level groups of countries ..................24
Table 5. Migration preparation: main results, by income level groups of countries ........26
Table 6. Migration preparation & perceptions, by income level groups of countries. 2010-
2015 ...................................................................................................................27
Table 7. Definition of the variables ..........................................................................30
Table 8. Groups of countries used in the analysis: by income level .............................31
Table 9. Groups of countries used in the analysis: by geographical areas .....................31
Table 10. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the overall surveyed

population and of those who intend to migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-
2015) and standard deviation. High income countries ...............................................32
2015) and standard deviation. Middle income countries .............................................33

2015) and standard deviation. Low income countries ................................................34

2015) and standard deviation. Africa ......................................................................35

2015) and standard deviation. Asia .........................................................................36

2015) and standard deviation. Europe. ....................................................................37
population and of those who intend to migrate. Latin America and Caribbean ...............38

2015) and standard deviation. Northern America ......................................................39

2015) and standard deviation. Oceania ...................................................................40
Table 19. Perceptions of the overall surveyed population and of those who intend to
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. High income
countries .............................................................................................................41
55
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Middle
income countries ..................................................................................................41
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Low income
countries .............................................................................................................42
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Africa .......42
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Asia .........43
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Europe .....43
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Latin
America & the Caribbean .......................................................................................44
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Northern
America...............................................................................................................44
migrate. Average share (for the period 2010-2015) and standard deviation. Oceania ....45
Table 28. Migration desire: main results, by geographical areas. ................................46
Table 29. Migration desire & perceptions, by geographical Areas ................................47
Table 30. Migration plan: main results, by geographical areas ....................................48
Table 31. Migration plan & perceptions, by geographical areas ...................................49
Table 32. Migration preparation: main results, by geographical areas ..........................50
Table 33. Migration preparation & perceptions, by geographical areas .........................51
56
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may
charge you).
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu).
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:

from the European Union’s representations ( http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
57
XX-NA-xxxxx-
58

Technical Report On Gallup v7 Finalpubsy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report On Gallup v7 Finalpubsy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A global analysis of intentions to

JRC Science Hub

Ispra: European Commission, 2018

© European Union, 2018

3 Facts and Figures .............................................................................................. 7

3.2 Descriptive analysis ..................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 The profile of those who intend to migrate ............................................ 11

4.1 Migration desire ......................................................................................... 18

4.3 Migration preparation ................................................................................. 24

6.2 Descriptive analysis ................................................................................... 32

List of figures ...................................................................................................... 54

List of tables ....................................................................................................... 55

3.1 Data source

Gallup provides an unprecedented source of information on individual migration

3.2.1 Migration intentions: the general picture

Comparable figures can be observed when disaggregating intentions to migrate by

3.2.2 The profile of those who intend to migrate

3.2.2.1 Demographic characteristics

3.2.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics

On average, individual income (measured in international dollars) is higher among those

3.2.2.3 Perceptions & life satisfaction

4.1 Migration desire

(1) (2) (3)

Table 2. Migration desire & perceptions, by income level groups of countries

(1) (2) (3)

4.2 Migration plan

(1) (2) (3)

Table 4. Migration plan & perceptions, by income level groups of countries

(1) (2) (3)

4.3 Migration preparation

When grouping countries by geographical areas, the following results should be

(1) (2) (3)

(1) (2) (3)

 The standard drivers of international migration movements are confirmed,

To conclude, if policy-makers are interested in understanding potential migration, they

6.1 Variables used: definition, description, and coverage

Notes. KCMD elaboration based on Gallup data.

Table 9. Groups of countries used in the analysis: by geographical areas

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

Overall surveyed Migration Migration Migration

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Table 29. Migration desire & perceptions, by geographical Areas

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Table 31. Migration plan & perceptions, by geographical areas

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Local economic 1.608* 2.330* 2.279* 1.767* 3.759 3.219*