Has the Program 3×1 for Migrants Contributed to Community Development in Mexico? Evidence from Panel Data of 2000 and 2005

Authors

  • Yoko Kijima,

    1. Graduate School of Systems & Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, 305-8577, Japan
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Horacio Gonzalez-Ramirez

    Corresponding author
    1. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas, y Pecuarias (INIFAP), km 5 Carretera Durango-El Mezquital, Durango, Dgo., 34170, Mexico
    Search for more papers by this author

  • The authors appreciate the funding from the government of Japan through the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology (MEXT), the project number is 20730177. They would like to thank SEDESOL Zacatecas, SEDESOL Jalisco, and Felipe Aviles-Lopez for providing data and Rodolfo Garcia-Zamora for useful discussion.

Kijima: Graduate School of Systems & Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, 305-8577, Japan. Tel: +81-29-853-5092; Fax: +29-853-5070; E-mail: kijima@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp. Gonzalez-Ramirez: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas, y Pecuarias (INIFAP), km 5 Carretera Durango-El Mezquital, Durango, Dgo., 34170, Mexico. Tel: +52-618-826-0433; Fax: 52-618-826-0435; E-mail: gonzalez.horacio@inifap.gob.mx.

Abstract

This paper examines how collective remittances contribute to regional development by using the community-level two-year panel data for the states of Jalisco and Zacatecas in Mexico, which have received the higher amounts of the budget of the Program 3×1 for Migrants. The results from empirical analyses show that the communities that received this program became better-off between 2000 and 2005, according to the marginalization level. Further analyses suggest that specifically investment in roads, water supply, and non-agricultural productive projects by the 3×1 program improved community welfare. The regression results on access to the program show, however, that neither the marginalization level nor the migration level determined the access to the program. This suggests that the 3×1 program was not necessarily targeted at the communities with higher marginalization and migration levels.

Ancillary