{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02073578595317726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012709030100334449, 'mean_word_length': 5.448275862068965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Migration Decisions Under Ambiguity: Migration Distance Effects Revisited

There is ample evidence that distance has a strong negative effect on migration. Despite its significance in migration decisions, scholars rarely explore the migration distance effect deeper than the first level of interpretation derived from the simple neoclassical theory of migration. This study revisits the migration distance effect in the spirit of Knightian distinction between risk and uncertainty. To this end, this study attempts to construct estimates of the risk premium migrants are willing to pay to avoid the risk associated with migration distance. The results show that the magnitude of the distance effect is not rationalized by risk aversion in the Arrow&#8211;Pratt sense (Arrow, 1965, The theory of risk aversion, Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio, Helsinki, Finland, 90; Pratt, 1964, Econometrica, 32, 122). In particular, the risk premium demanded by distant rural residents is unjustifiably higher compared with that of those living closer to urban areas in their migration decisions. The results suggest that the migration distance effect is analogous to the equity home bias puzzle and the Ellsberg paradox in that the assumption of subjective expected utility can lead to seemingly irrational human behaviors. Some of the findings in this study shed light on the role of subjective aspects such as perception, confidence, and pessimism in migration decisions, which have been neglected in the literature.