Desktop version

Home arrow Economics arrow Children and Forced Migration: Durable Solutions During Transient Years

Results

Table 4 shows the first three aspects of reintegration that were analyzed (i.e., living conditions, education, and health access), again comparing children who have not migrated, first-generation returned children, and second-generation returned children. The results give a mixed picture of the living conditions of the three different groups. Non-migrant children are significantly more likely to have proper walls in their houses and clean drinking water compared to the returnees. This finding suggests that the housing conditions of non-migrants are better than those of the returnees. Returnees, however, are more likely to have a proper toilet. This is especially the case for second-generation returnees. It is not clear why these indicators differ for the groups.

It is possible that many of the second-generation returnees reside in households that were based in Tanzania for longer and may have become accustomed to better sanitation facilities. It is also possible that this group of returnees was targeted with some special assistance with regard to sanitation. Apart from the proper toilet indicator, however, second- generation returnees score lowest on all living condition indicators. First- generation returnees are significantly more likely to live in houses with more rooms per person than second-generation returnees. This may be because of the fact that first-generation returnees are, on average, older compared to non-migrants and second-generation returnees.

As far as education is concerned, there are few differences between non-migrants and returnees except with regard to the children being in the right grade for their age. First-generation returnees are significantly less likely to be in the right grade for their age than second-generation returnees and non-migrants. This is likely because of a lapse in school during displacement periods. Children that were affected by the conflict are more likely to have experienced gaps in their education. First-generation returnees have the most years of schooling, but this is probably because of the first-generation being older. Therefore, they have more years of schooling by default.

Second-generation returnees have fewer years of schooling compared to first-generation returnees and non-migrants and also are less likely to attend school than first-generation returnees. This may be because of the language barriers that second-generation returnees face when reintegrating into the Burundi school system and the higher dropout rates among this group (Fransen and Kuschminder 2012; Sommers 2013). There are no significant differences, however, between the school attendance rates of non-migrant children and second-generation returned children. FirstTable 4 Multidimensional Reintegration: Living Conditions, Education, and Health

Nonmigrants

First-

generation

returnees

Second-

generation

returnees

t-test

nonmigrants

vs.

returnees

t-test

first-

generation returnees vs. second- generation returnees

Living conditions

Proper walls (1 = yes)

0.15

0.13

0.09

1.88*

-0.82

No. of rooms per household size

0.58

0.62

0.51

2.05*

-2.74***

Electricity used for lighting or cooking (1 = yes)

0.03

0.04

0.01

0.99

-1.57

Clean drinking water (1 = yes)

0.63

0.45

0.47

4.40***

0.26

Proper toilet (1 = yes)

0.78

0.79

0.86

-1.95*

1.15

Education

Years of schooling of child

2.85

4.93

2.29

-1.39

-8.66***

School attendance of child (1 = yes)

0.70

0.85

0.71

-1.38

-1.90*

Right grade for age of child (1 = yes)

0.95

0.68

0.99

2.52**

7.17***

Literacy of household head (1 = yes)

0.61

0.60

0.63

-0.12

0.35

Health access

Access to hospital (1 = yes)

0.83

0.72

0.79

2.15**

0.91

Access to health clinic (1 = yes)

0.98

1.00

0.98

-1.13

-0.86

Note: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

generation returnees have a significantly higher school attendance rate than the second-generation returnees and non-migrants. In terms of literacy of the household head, there are no noticeable differences between the groups. On average, around 60 % of the household heads are literate.

In terms of health access, there are no significant differences between the three groups. Non-migrants have considerably more access to hospitals than first- and second-generation returnees. Still, access to health clinics is more or less equal across groups.

Table 5 shows the results for the other three dimensions of reintegration that were used to compare non-migrant children, first-generation returned children, and second-generation returned children. These include economic conditions, social and financial inclusion, and security. Within the economic conditions dimension it was found that non-migrant children live in households with a lower proportion of adults employed than child returnees. Though, this is most likely driven by second-generation returnee households who have 90 % of adults employed compared to 81 % of first-generation returnee households. There may be a selection effect here with households that were away for longer only returning when the parents knew that they had opportunities for employment on return.

Although households of second-generation returnees have, on average, a higher proportion of adults who are employed, the households of first- and second-generation returnees seem to be slightly worse off than those of non-migrant households in terms of the other economic indicators. These households have fewer income sources, more problems meeting basic needs, lower food security, and lower ability to generate money in case of an emergency. Another interesting finding is that the households of second-generation returnees are significantly more likely to have received food aid in the past 12 months compared to others. The food security of first- and second-generation return households is comparable, which may be because of the food aid acceptance of second-generation return households. Land ownership is highest among the households of first-generation returnees.

The social and financial inclusion dimension shows that the households of non-migrant children have, on average, significantly better social and financial inclusion than the households of the returned children. The

Table 5 Multidimensional Reintegration: Economic Conditions, Inclusion and Security

Nonmigrants

First-

generation

returnees

Second-

generation

returnees

t-test

nonmigrants

vs.

returnees

t-test

first-

generation returnees vs. second- generation returnees

Economic conditions

Proportion of household adults employed

0.84

0.81

0.90

-1.87*

3.33***

Number of household income sources

1.50

1.49

1.46

0.68

-0.28

Problems meeting basic needs (1 = yes)

0.52

0.60

0.58

-1.55

-0.21

Food security of household (1 = yes)

0.30

0.20

0.23

2.35**

0.50

Household food aid reception in past 12 months

0.18

0.15

0.32

-0.86

0.74

Ability to generate money in case of emergency (1 = yes)

0.16

0.11

0.12

1.48

0.20

Household land ownership (1 = yes)

0.86

0.94

0.80

1.12

-2.21**

Social and financial inclusion

Organization

membership

0.35

0.19

0.17

4.67***

-0.30

Household has bank account (1 = yes)

0.06

0.04

0.06

0.32

0.50

Household has savings (1 = yes)

0.15

0.11

0.09

2.23**

-0.41

{continued)

Table 5 (continued)

Nonmigrants

First-

generation

returnees

Second-

generation

returnees

t-test

nonmigrants

vs.

returnees

t-test

first-

generation returnees vs. second- generation returnees

Household has mobile phone (1 = yes)

0.19

0.09

0.12

2 74***

0.60

Security

Feelings of reconciliation of household head

4.32

4.23

4.29

0.51

0.33

Feelings of justice of household head

3.01

2.21

2.62

3.67***

1.45

Feelings of danger of household head

3.03

2.59

2.61

3.04***

0.07

Number of hours child worked outside home

0.69

0.52

1.44

-1.11

0.88

Number of hours child worked inside home

9.62

11.33

11.00

-1.66*

-0.19

Note: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

households of non-migrant children have more organizational memberships, are more likely to have savings, and usually own a mobile phone. This makes sense because being in the social environment for longer likely encourages more participation in these areas. There are no significant differences among the groups in terms of households having a bank account; in general, few people have a bank account in rural Burundi.

The security dimension includes, first, the feelings of reconciliation, danger, and justice of the children’s household head. It appears that non?migrants live in households that have more feelings of reconciliation and justice but also are more concerned about security in Burundi. This may be because of a selection effect of returnees; returnees who are concerned about renewed conflict were perhaps less inclined to return. Second, the security dimension encompasses the number of hours that children work inside or outside the household. The results show that second-generation returnees work, on average, more hours outside the home and that first- generation returnees work, on average, more hours inside the home.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >

Related topics