| Literature DB >> 35712313 |
Ge Zheng1, Dongliang Yang1,2, Jiawei Li1,3.
Abstract
Background: Happiness is a complex concept involving many subjects such as society, psychology, and ethics. How will migration distance affect migrants' happiness under the new trend of migration in China? The goal of this paper is to analyze the influence and transmission mechanism of migration distance on happiness of migrant individuals, and the heterogeneity of this effect on urban and rural migrants.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese internal migrants; happiness; mental health; migration distance; social integration
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35712313 PMCID: PMC9195499 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.913553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Descriptive statistics of the key variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Happiness | 1 = very unhappy, 2 = unhappy, 3 = so-so, 4 = happy, 5 = very happy | 3.742 | 0.720 | 1 | 5 |
| Migration distance | 0 = Intra-province, 1 = Inter-province | 0.575 | 0.494 | 0 | 1 |
| Gender | 1 = female, 0 = male | 0.408 | 0.492 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | Respondent's age | 34.019 | 8.914 | 18 | 59 |
| Household register | 0 = rural, 1 = urban | 0.159 | 0.365 | 0 | 1 |
| Income | Individual's income (in log) | 7.856 | 0.574 | 4.605 | 11.493 |
| Education level | 0 = low, 2 = high | 0.315 | 0.464 | 0 | 1 |
| Employment status | 0 = employees,1 = employers,2 = self-employed | 0.721 | 0.904 | 0 | 2 |
| Number of children | Number of children owned by the respondent | 1.379 | 0.715 | 0 | 7 |
| Migration time | The length of the last visit to this city/district/county | 4.423 | 4.637 | 0 | 51 |
| Social integration | 0 = Disagree, 1 = Agree | 0.929 | 0.256 | 0 | 1 |
Figure 1Framework of mediation effect analysis.
The effect of migration distance on happiness.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Range | −0.367*** | 0.001*** | 0.005*** | 0.077*** | −0.036*** | −0.047*** |
| (−29.80) | (11.50) | (23.30) | (30.16) | (−29.24) | (−29.46) | |
| Gender | 0.113*** | −0.000*** | −0.001*** | −0.024*** | 0.011*** | 0.014*** |
| (8.98) | (−7.28) | (−8.73) | (−8.99) | (8.96) | (8.97) | |
| Age | 0.004*** | −0.000*** | −0.000*** | −0.001*** | 0.000*** | 0.001*** |
| (4.89) | (−4.56) | (−4.85) | (−4.90) | (4.89) | (4.89) | |
| Household register | 0.083*** | −0.000*** | −0.001*** | −0.018*** | 0.008*** | 0.011*** |
| (4.54) | (−4.26) | (−4.50) | (−4.54) | (4.53) | (4.53) | |
| Education | 0.070*** | −0.000*** | −0.001*** | −0.015*** | 0.007*** | 0.009*** |
| (4.59) | (−4.31) | (−4.56) | (−4.60) | (4.59) | (4.59) | |
| Income | 0.157*** | −0.000*** | −0.002*** | −0.033*** | 0.015*** | 0.020*** |
| (14.48) | (−9.45) | (−13.50) | (−14.52) | (14.40) | (14.45) | |
| Employers | 0.187*** | −0.000*** | −0.002*** | −0.039*** | 0.017*** | 0.024*** |
| (9.62) | (−7.89) | (−9.82) | (−9.76) | (10.48) | (9.27) | |
| Self-employed workers | 0.102*** | −0.000*** | −0.001*** | −0.021*** | 0.010*** | 0.013*** |
| (7.65) | (−6.57) | (−7.57) | (−7.66) | (7.70) | (7.61) | |
| Children | −0.029*** | 0.000*** | 0.000*** | 0.006*** | −0.003*** | −0.004*** |
| (−3.08) | (2.99) | (3.07) | (3.08) | (−3.08) | (−3.08) | |
| Time | 0.036*** | −0.000*** | −0.000*** | −0.008*** | 0.004*** | 0.005*** |
| (28.03) | (−11.39) | (−22.44) | (−28.29) | (27.41) | (27.81) | |
| /cut 1 | −0.346*** | |||||
| (−3.71) | ||||||
| /cut 2 | 1.295*** | |||||
| (13.86) | ||||||
| /cut 3 | 1.395*** | |||||
| (14.93) | ||||||
| /cut 4 | 1.407*** | |||||
| (15.06) | ||||||
| Observations | 101,409 | 101,409 | 101,409 | 101,409 | 101,409 | 101,409 |
t statistics in parentheses, ***p < 0.01.
Figure 2Standardized bias before and after matching.
Figure 3Density distribution of the propensity score.
PSM analysis of the effects of migration distance on happiness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference | −0.131*** | −0.136*** | −0.137*** | −0.143*** | −0.135*** |
| S.E. | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| T-stat | −21.47 | −26.08 | −29.47 | −23.31 | −25.95 |
***p < 0.01.
Conditional independence assumptions test results for pseudo treatment.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| −0.002 | 0.009 | −0.2 | |
| 0.003 | 0.008 | 0.43 |
For data with large samples and normal distribution, when 1.65 < |t| <1.96, p <0. 10; when 1.96 < |t| <2.58, p <0.05; when |t|>2.58, p < 0.01.
Heterogeneous effects of migration distance by household register.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Range | −0.357*** | 0.699*** | −0.425*** | 0.653*** |
| (0.013) | (0.009) | (0.032) | (0.021) | |
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | ||
| LR chi2 | 1932.62 | 293.58 | ||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.0105 | 0.0088 | ||
| Observations | 86,122 | 15,287 | ||
Standard errors in parentheses, ***p < 0.01.
Mediating effect of social integration.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Range | −0.367*** | −0.619*** | −0.334*** |
| (0.012) | (0.028) | (0.012) | |
| Social integration | 1.088*** | ||
| (0.025) | |||
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Constant | 2.677*** | ||
| (0.199) | |||
|
| 101,409 | 101,409 | 101,409 |
Standard errors in parentheses, ***p < 0.01.