Labor Force Participation of Central American Migrant Women in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Only one suggestion: To enhance section 4. It must focus on highlighting the paper's contribution to the literature on migrant women's participation in various economic sectors. Additionally, emphasize the significance of this paper's findings in advancing the understanding of Central American emigrants in Mexico and other regions. Highlighting these contributions will make the section more impactful and relevant to the broader academic discourse.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, here is the response:

Only one suggestion: To enhance section 4. It must focus on highlighting the paper's contribution to the literature on migrant women's participation in various economic sectors. Additionally, emphasize the significance of this paper's findings in advancing the understanding of Central American emigrants in Mexico and other regions. Highlighting these contributions will make the section more impactful and relevant to the broader academic discourse. A new paragraph was added in the findings section highlighting the contributions of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Using data from various sources, this paper examine patterns in immigration and labor force participation rates among immigrant to Mexico from Central American countries. The authors demonstrate changes in patterns of migration and labor force participation.

This is a fairly straightforward analysis, and it does what it sets out to do. I do, however, have a couple of suggestions. First, there are several places, especially in the introduction and framing, where the authors make claims that seem like they should be accompanied by citations. I've noted some of these in my detailed notes. I also don't know this area very well, and I suppose these claims could be so straightforward that citations are not needed. Relatedly, there are places where I think more elaboration is needed, such as Table 2. I think the paper would benefit from a more detailed explanation of what the models are, and how the coefficients should be interpreted.

There are also a number of places where there are small typos or incorrect references to tables and figures. I've noted the ones I saw in my detailed notes, but would encourage the authors to read their submission carefully in case I've missed any.

I wanted to know at least a little more about the data sources, how the data are collected, and what sorts of steps the authors took to compute the data in their figures and tables. There are some striking patterns in the table of income data that I think can probably be attributed to the dataset, but I'd like to see that explicitly acknowledged. I think it's especially important to discuss what sort of data quality issues there might be; how likely is it that these data sources capture all migrants?

Finally, Some of the tables and figures seem a little underanalyzed. For example, Table 1 has a great deal of information in it, but the authors only note that income for migrants is similar to or higher than income for Mexican nationals. It seems like there has to be something else worth calling attention to, especially around gender. I think the paper would be strengthened by more explicitly addressing the gendered differences apparent in some of the evidence.

Detailed feedback

line 21: I don't know this field very well, but several of the claims in this paragraph seem like they should be backed up with citations.

line 56: typo: "findings"

line 82: again, seems like some citations would be useful.

line 127: I couldn't follow this sentence, what does it mean for marital status to be "a significant stratifying factor", and how does that relate to the low LFPRs for immigrant women?

Figure 2: the y-axis is too crowded.

Line 206: why was ths anticipated? Did I miss something?

Figure 4: label is wrong.

Figure 6: figure note seems like it should be for table 1, or like this is supposed to be text.

Table 1: what are the units? And how is it possible that the median incomes are identical across various national origins in so many years (specifically for men)? Is this an issue with the data source? This needs to be explained somewhere.

Table 2: Again, I'm not super familiar with this field, but I would like to see what the "labor income model" is. Who is included? How does it handle people who are not in the labor force? What exactly do the coefficients mean?

Line 274: I believe this should be referencing Table 2.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, here are responses to each:

Using data from various sources, this paper examine patterns in immigration and labor force participation rates among immigrant to Mexico from Central American countries. The authors demonstrate changes in patterns of migration and labor force participation.

This is a fairly straightforward analysis, and it does what it sets out to do. I do, however, have a couple of suggestions. First, there are several places, especially in the introduction and framing, where the authors make claims that seem like they should be accompanied by citations. I've noted some of these in my detailed notes.Done

I also don't know this area very well, and I suppose these claims could be so straightforward that citations are not needed. Relatedly, there are places where I think more elaboration is needed, such as Table 2. I think the paper would benefit from a more detailed explanation of what the models are, and how the coefficients should be interpreted. More detailed analysis has been provided

There are also a number of places where there are small typos or incorrect references to tables and figures. I've noted the ones I saw in my detailed notes, but would encourage the authors to read their submission carefully in case I've missed any.The text has been reviewed in detail

I wanted to know at least a little more about the data sources, how the data are collected, and what sorts of steps the authors took to compute the data in their figures and tables. There are some striking patterns in the table of income data that I think can probably be attributed to the dataset, but I'd like to see that explicitly acknowledged. I think it's especially important to discuss what sort of data quality issues there might be; how likely is it that these data sources capture all migrants?

The data comes from the population census which are the only reliable source to measure and characterize immigrant population.  Although immigration is a growing phenomenon in Mexico, it is still small in magnitude. The size of a survey would have to be huge in order to provide reliable information regarding immigrant population. More explanation about the need to use population censuses in order to study immigrant population is provided in the text.

Finally, Some of the tables and figures seem a little underanalyzed. For example, Table 1 has a great deal of information in it, but the authors only note that income for migrants is similar to or higher than income for Mexican nationals. It seems like there has to be something else worth calling attention to, especially around gender. I think the paper would be strengthened by more explicitly addressing the gendered differences apparent in some of the evidence.

More analysis has been added

Detailed feedback

line 21: I don't know this field very well, but several of the claims in this paragraph seem like they should be backed up with citations. Done

line 56: typo: "findings" Corrected

line 82: again, seems like some citations would be useful DONE

line 127: I couldn't follow this sentence, what does it mean for marital status to be "a significant stratifying factor", and how does that relate to the low LFPRs for immigrant women? Better explained in text.

Figure 2: the y-axis is too crowded.Corrected

Line 206: why was ths anticipated? Did I miss something? explained

Figure 4: label is wrong. Corrected

Figure 6: figure note seems like it should be for table 1, or like this is supposed to be text. Corrected

Table 1: what are the units? And how is it possible that the median incomes are identical across various national origins in so many years (specifically for men)? Is this an issue with the data source? This needs to be explained somewhere.

The units were included. It is possible for the median values to be identical for two different nationalities, because the median is less sensitive to outliers than the mean. If both populations have outliers that affect the men but not the mean, they could show identical median values. Due to the fact that the mean and standard deviation provide a characterization of the income data, we deleted the median in order to simplify the interpretation of results.  

Table 2: Again, I'm not super familiar with this field, but I would like to see what the "labor income model" is. Who is included? How does it handle people who are not in the labor force? What exactly do the coefficients mean?  More information about the model as well as the sample included un the estimation was added.

Line 274: I believe this should be referencing Table 2.Corrected

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

If you revise this manuscript, you should consider citing more sources about migration from Central America into both Mexico and the United States, and saying more about the migrant population you are discussing.

For example, you should discuss in the body of the text as context: 

• How many migrants are there from each nation?

• What percentage of the population for each nation is male or female?  

• What jobs are these women filling?  Does this vary by origin?  Or marital status?

You should also discuss the importance of immigration status.  For example, how likely is it that even educated women can "assimilate" and move out of the informal sector if they are undocumented?

You could also discuss the high percentage of Mexicans (between 55 and 60 percent) working in the informal sector.  How does this compare to the migrant population in the informal sector?

Further discussion of these topics would strengthen your analysis and argument.  

Then you can contextualize your findings relative to literature about the informal sectar in Mexico and the US and literature about migration.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, here are the responses to each:

If you revise this manuscript, you should consider citing more sources about migration from Central America into both Mexico and the United States, and saying more about the migrant population you are discussing.

A few paragraphs were added explaining the history of migration from Central America to Mexico and the USA.

For example, you should discuss in the body of the text as context: 

• How many migrants are there from each nation? This was already included in figure 1 of the paper which shows the total population of each of the nationalities analyzed, according to the census of each period.
• What percentage of the population for each nation is male or female?  In figure 2 we show the feminity index which is the number of female migrants divided by the number of male migrants. It shows the degree of feminization of the population.
• What jobs are these women filling?  Does this vary by origin?  Or marital status? Figure 6 shows the composition of employment by gender and nationality. Unfortunately, I am not able to calculate the types of jobs by marital status, which I agree would be very interesting to analyze.

You should also discuss the importance of immigration status.  For example, how likely is it that even educated women can "assimilate" and move out of the informal sector if they are undocumented? Unfortunately, the data base we are using, does not provide information on the immigration status of migration.

You could also discuss the high percentage of Mexicans (between 55 and 60 percent) working in the informal sector.  How does this compare to the migrant population in the informal sector?

Regrettably, the variable we devised to serve as a proxy for formal sector participation encountered issues, rendering it unusable for this analysis.

Further discussion of these topics would strengthen your analysis and argument.  

Then you can contextualize your findings relative to literature about the informal sectar in Mexico and the US and literature about migration.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a much improved discussion of migration.  While I personally think readers would appreciate a broader discussion of the informal sector in Mexico and the types of non-informal jobs (e.g., other than services and commerce) that migrants might be holding, I understand that this I not your objective.

However, please review your statement on page 12 (lines 356-358) - it does not appear to be borne out by the numbers in Table 2:

"Therefore, we 356 can conclude that migrant workers from Central America receive remuneration above the  labor income of their Mexican counterparts."

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Mexicans were added in figures 3, 5 and 6.

Explanations we give: in the case of Salvadorans, the reason behind this favorable result may be their higher educational level. In the case of Guatemalans, it is likely that their greater integration in the primary sector explains the result. If this is the case, the comparison group is likely to consist of Mexican subsistence farmers, implying that migrant workers, whether wage workers or laborers, receive remuneration above the labor income of their Mexican counterparts