the advantages of panel surveys the mexican family life

THE ADVANTAGES OF PANEL SURVEYS
THE MEXICAN FAMILY LIFE SURVEY
ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE LOS NIVELES DE VIDA DE LOS HOGARES
CODIRECTORES: GRACIELA TERUEL Y LUIS RUBALCAVA
ROADMAP
1.  Some advantages of Panel surveys
2.  MxFLS an ongoing national-representative panel survey in Mexico
3.  Examples:
1.  Who falls, who stays and who leaves poverty
2.  Are Mexican migrants healthier than those who stay?
3.  Does crime affect the mental health of the Mexican population?
2. ADVANTAGES OF PANEL SURVEYS
¡  Economies of scale-- it is useful for many evaluations and policies, as opposed to
evaluations done purposefully for one program
¡  Long term exposure analysis—if you have a long enough panel and low attrition
¡  Difficult to do in randomized trials
2. ADVANTAGES
Excellent tool to study health, economic transitions overtime
Ø  Health transition
Ø  Labor transitions
Ø  Poverty transitions
¡  Important for the study of migration dynamics
Ø  Domestic migration
Ø  International migration
Ø  Return migration
3. MEXICAN FAMILY LIFE SURVEY
Encuesta Nacional de Niveles de Vida de los Hogares
An ongoing national-representative longitudinal survey in Mexico
MXFLS´ GOAL
¡  Collect information on the welfare of Mexican households
¡  Representative of the population at the national, urban-rural and regional level
¡  Multi-thematic
¡  Longitudinal
¡  Community component
CHARACTERISTICS
¡  Conducts in-person interviews (to all household members)
¡  Collects objective health information (anthropometric measures and
biomarkers) with specialized health personnel
¡  Comprises information on ONE single instrument (households and individuals)
¡  Follows individuals overtime, regardless of their place of residence
¡  Re-contacts in Mexico
¡  Re-contacts in the USA
CHARACTERISTICS
¡  First round (baseline survey) in 2002
¡  Second round in 2005-2006
¡  Third round in 2010-2012
¡  Baseline sample: 35,000 individuals
¡  Mex-U.S. Migrants follow up:
¡  Second Round 900 individuals (recontact: 91%)
¡  Third Round 1,300 individuals (recontact 88%)
TOPICS
HOUSEHOLD LEVEL
¡  Economic characteristics (income, expenditure, wealth, savings, credits)
¡  Transfers inside and outside the household
¡  Victimization
¡  Agricultural land use and management (rural households)
TOPICS
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
¡  Human capital (schooling, cognitive ability and health status)
¡  Employment and time use
¡  Migration (national and international)
¡  Reproductive health
¡  Marriage history
¡  Anthropometric measures and biomarkers
¡  Reproductive health, contraceptive methods and pregnancy history
¡  Health perception, mental health
HEALTH
Objective health information (anthropometric measures and biomarkers) of all
household members:
¡  Weight
¡  Height
¡  Waist circumference
¡  Hip circumference
¡  Blood pressure >15 years old
¡  Hemoglobin >6 months old
HEALTH
Objective health information (anthropometric measures and biomarkers) of all
household members:
¡  2005 + cholesterol LDL, cholesterol HDL, total glucose and dried blood samples
¡  In 2010+Hba1c, leg length
TOPICS
COMMUNITY LEVEL
Collects information on the infrastructure of the communities where the sample
households live:
¡  Schools
¡  Health centers
¡  Small health providers
¡  Local authorities
¡  Commercial establishments
ADVANTAGES
OF MXFLS
¡  PANEL: look at transitions:
¡ 
For example, who is in poverty over an extended period? Who can leave poverty? Who falls into
poverty?
¡  MULTIPURPOSE: Studying the relationship between different variables
¡  For example, are Mexican Migrants healthier than the overall population?
¡  CONDUCT CASUAL-EFFECT ANALYSES.
¡  For example: Does crime affect the mental health of the Mexican population?
¡  Evaluation of Public Policies
¡  Evaluation of Seguro Popular, health insurance program; PROSPERA (CCT program).
Example 1
Who stays, leaves and falls into poverty?
MEDICIÓN OFICIAL DE LA POBREZA EN
MÉXICO
El Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de
Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL)
I. 
Medición de la Pobreza a nivel Nacional, Estatal y Municipal
II. 
Evaluación de los programas y políticas sociales
DESVENTAJAS
¡  Sin embargo, la medición no permite saber nada acerca de la entrada,
permanencia o salida de los estados de pobreza de las personas a lo
largo del tiempo.
¡  ¿Son los mismos individuos los que aparecen en pobreza extrema en
2010 y 2012?
¡  ¿Las personas que viven en pobreza extrema logran salir de su condición
inicial?
CIFRAS DE POBREZA EN MÉXICO 2010 Y 2012
Bienestar Ingreso
2010
2012
LBE
LBE
LBM
LBM
Carencias
Derecho sociales
Carencias
Derecho sociales
CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LOS GRUPOS
Se utilizó la misma metodología que el Coneval para estimar la pobreza y con base en
ésta se definen 4 grupos:
1. 
Pobres crónicos: aquellas personas que en los tres periodos analizados se
encontraron en pobreza.
2.  Pobres persistentes: aquellas personas clasificados en pobreza en dos de los tres
periodos analizados
3.  Pobres Transitorios: individuos que presentaron la condición de pobreza sólo en
uno de los tres periodos.
4.  No pobres: aquellas personas que no se clasificaron como pobres en ninguno de
los tres periodos
POVERTY TRANSITION LÍNEA DE BIENESTAR ECONÓMICO
Movilidad social de la pobreza multidimensional total (LBE)
Porcentaje
Pobre crónico
25.33
Pobre persistente
23.67
Pobre transitorio
24.43
No pobre
26.56
Total
100
POVERTY TRANSITION LÍNEA DE BIENESTAR MÍNIMA
Movilidad social de la pobreza multidimensional extrema (LBM)
Porcentaje
Pobre crónico extremo
1.50
Pobre persistente extremo
5.13
Pobre transitorio extremo
16.55
No pobre extremo
76.82
Total
100
HALLAZGOS
ü  La probabilidad de quedarse inmóvil en una sola categoría de
pobreza es baja.
ü  La probabilidad de vivir siempre en pobreza extrema es muy baja,
menor a 2%.
ü  7.7 de cada 10 mexicanos han experimentado estar pobreza en el
periodo de análisis (2002,2005,2012).
Example 2
Are Mexican migrants healthier than those who stay?
INTRODUCTION
¡  Characteristics of movers to the US prior to their move is not fully
understood
¡  Movers are not randomly drawn from their origin country
¡  Healthy Migrant Effect
¡  Positive selection on education, mental and physical health
¡  Possible explanation to the Hispanic Paradox
DIFFICULTY TESTING THE HEALTHY
MIGRANT EFFECT
¡  Lack of data on immigrants close to the time of migration
¡  Health status of individuals potentially affected by time spent in the US
¡  Reference Group: Comparisons of foreign-born and native-born
individuals in the US
¡  Measures of health: self-reports and utilization
MXFLS WELL SUITED….
¡  1. Health information before individuals moved to the US (2002)
¡  2. Comparison group of non-movers in home country
¡  3. We use physical measures of health as opposed to only self assessed
¡  4. Control for origin location of migration and age
¡  5. We will also include schooling as another measure of human capital
EMPIRICAL STRATEGY
¡  Using a logistic regression we compare movers and non-movers
and relate them to their health and education as measured in 2002
¡  Dependent variable: construct an indicator of whether an individual
moved to the US between 2002 to 2005 (using 2005)
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND PROBABILITY OF MOVING FORM MEXICO TO THE US
DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS (1) IF MOVED TO THE US AFTER 2002
ODDS RATIO FROM LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS
Healthandeduca,onin2002
Height(cm)
(1)IfBMI<25
(1)Normalbloodpressure
(1)IfHbreplete
(1)IfGHSisgood
(1)IfrelaMveGHSisgood
YearsofeducaMon
Samplesize
Male
Rural
Urban
0.998
1.013
1.701* 1.105
1.709
1.027
1.929* 0.792
0.586* 0.932
1.032 0.515*
0.999
1.011
2,148
1,669
Female
Rural
Urban
0.98
1.071*
0.98
1.349
1.88
0.834
2.02*
1.081
0.6*
1.618
1.1
1.688*
1.07
1.063
1,505
2,148
MARGINAL EFFECT
Marginaleffectof…
excellenthealthin2002
highmigraMonstate
Chi-squaretestforjointsignificanceof
allhealthcovariates
(p-value)
Rural
5.70%
43.20%
Urban
0.02%
20.10%
18.34
11.88
0.01
0.06
RESULTS
¡  Health does not do a good job at predicting whether people move to the US
¡  Health selection of rural males and females in general
¡  GHS must be interpreted with caution
Example 3
Does crime affect the mental health of the Mexican
population?
5.6
2.8
1.7
1.7
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
Chile
France
New Zeland
Germany
Spain
Japan
Hong Kong
5.3
India
Argentina
5.7
United States
7.9
Uruguay
8.9
Costa Rica
11.0
Indonesia
Mexico
Russia
South Africa
Brazil
Colombia
52.0
Jamaica
Venezuela
Honduras
57.9
Homicide Rate by country 2002 – 2009
Homicides per 100.000 inhabitants
49.0
36.4
25.2
18.0
14.9
Flores, Linaloe R.
El Universal, A14.
26-oct-2010.
MXFLS WELL SUITED….
¡  Analyze the effect of crime on health at the population level
¡  Attempt to look at causality instead of correlations
¡  Exploit high incidence of crime in Mexico
EMPIRICAL STRATEGY
¡  Measure change in health from baseline to first panel:
∆Health= Health2005-Health2002
¡  Compare the ∆Health between individuals who suffered a crime
after baseline, and those who did not.
Diff-in-Diff= [∆Health]victim-[∆Health]no victim
¡  Control for: SES and CFE
MENTAL HEALTH
¡  Subjective Burden Scale
¡  22-CESDS type questions (HRS)
¡  Calderon (1997) Validated for Mexico
¡  Measures prevalence of anxiety and depression
Effect of street crime on females
Health measure
Sadness
Crying
Obsessive
Pressure on chest
Nervous
Pessimistic
Lonely
Desire to Die
Street crime
(2)
Severe
(4)
HH member
(5)
0.14**
0.16**
0.13*
0.13*
0.21**
0.15**
0.14*
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.13*
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.13*
0.03
0.10**
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.09*
0.12**
0.06
-0.01
Heterogeneity in the effect of street crime
Street crime
Severe
HH member
(2)
(4)
(5)
AVERAGE
Log total score
0.07**
0.06**
0.04**
FEMALES
Log total score 0.10**
0.09**
0.06**
MALES
Log total score
0.05
0.03
0.01
CONCLUSIONS
¡  The Mexican Crime wave has consequences beyond the monetary value of the
immediate economic losses.
¡  Victimization imposes a significant burden on the mental health of the urban
population.
¡  Crime hits differentially across genders, with women´s health suffering higher
costs.
¡  Female mental health is affected by crimes suffered in person as much as crimes
suffered by her households.