Chapter 3. Understanding the methodological framework used in the Dominican Republic

In order to provide an empirical foundation to the analysis of the links between migration and policy, the Interrelations between Public Policies, Migration and Development (IPPMD) project used three evidence-gathering tools: household surveys, community surveys, and interviews with representatives of public, private, non-government and international institutions to provide additional qualitative information about the migration context in the Dominican Republic. This chapter explains how the sampling framework was designed and implemented, as well as the statistical approaches used in this report to analyse the link between key policy sectors and emigration, immigration, return migration and remittances. The chapter also includes descriptive statistics drawn from the survey data. It outlines some key characteristics of the migrants in the sample as well as some background on immigration, emigration, remittances and return migration.


The Interrelations between Public Policies, Migration and Development (IPPMD) project framework is empirically based. In order to provide evidence-based analysis on the interrelationship between migration and the various sectors under study (Chapter 1), the project carried out data collection in the Dominican Republic from July 2014 to February 2015. The OECD Development Centre developed three analytical tools for the fieldwork, each tailored to the Dominican context, in collaboration with the research centre Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Sociales (CIES) at the Universidad Iberoamericana in Santo Domingo, who conducted the fieldwork. The three tools included:

  1. A household survey, administered to 2 037 households (see Box 3.1 for definitions). The household questionnaire gathered information about individual and household characteristics related to five key development sectors: (1) the labour market; (2) agriculture; (3) education; (4) investment and financial services; and (5) health and social protection, as well as household members’ experience with immigration, emigration, remittances and return migration. It also asked about their experience of specific public policies which may affect their migration and remitting patterns. More details on the specific modules of the household survey can be found in Annex 3.A2.

  2. A community survey, carried out in the 54 communities where the household survey took place. Respondents were mayors and locality leaders or technical staff with key information about the localities. The questionnaire gathered information on the community’s demographic, social and economic background as well as the existence of policies and development programmes.

  3. Stakeholder interviews: 21 interviews were held with representatives of government ministries and other public institutions, non-government organisations, private sector institutions, academia and international organisations based in the Dominican Republic. These interviews were used to collect qualitative information on trends, policies, opinions and predictions related to various aspects of migration in the country. The information they provided helped enrich and interpret the quantitative data by including additional details on the specific context of the Dominican Republic.

Box 3.1. Key definitions of the household survey

A household consists of one or several persons, irrespective of whether they are related or not, who normally live together in the same housing unit or group of housing units and have common cooking and eating arrangements.

A household head is the most respected/responsible member of the household, who provides most of the needs of the household, makes key decisions and whose authority is recognised by all members of the household.

The main respondent is the person who is most knowledgeable about the household and its members. He or she may be the head, or any other member (aged 18 or over). The main respondent answers the majority of the modules in the questionnaire, with the exception of the immigrant and return migrant modules which were administered directly to the immigrants and returnees themselves. As it was not possible to interview migrants who were abroad at the time of the survey, questions in the emigrant module were asked of the main respondent.

A migrant household is a household with at least one current international emigrant, return migrant or an immigrant.

A non-migrant household is a household without any current international emigrant, return migrant or immigrant.

An international emigrant is an ex-member of the household who left to live in another country, and has been away for at least three consecutive months without returning.a

An international return migrant is a current member of the household, who was born in the Dominican Republic, and had previously been living in another country for at least three consecutive months and returned to the country.

An international immigrant is a current member of the household who was born in another country, and has lived at least three months in the Dominican Republic.

International remittances are cash or in-kind transfers from international emigrants. In the case of in-kind remittances, the respondent is asked to estimate the value of the goods the household received.

A remittance-receiving household is a household that received international remittances in the past 12 months prior to the survey. Remittances can be sent by former members of the household as well as by migrants that never been part of the household.

a. Migration surveys often consider individuals to be migrants only after they have been away for either 6 or 12 months. Including shorter migration spells ensures the inclusion of seasonal migrants in the sample (temporary trips such as holidays are however not considered in this definition). The survey also captures migration experiences that date long back in time as the definitions do not put any restrictions on the amount of time that elapsed since the time of emigration, immigration or return migration (although it is likely that more recent migration experiences are better captured in the survey as emigrants that left long ago are less likely to be reported by the household).

This chapter describes how the tools were implemented in the Dominican Republic. It explains the sampling design adopted for the household and community surveys, and outlines the analytical approach taken in the study. Finally, it presents basic descriptive statistics on the four migration dimensions analysed in the report: emigration, remittances, return migration and immigration.

How were the households and communities sampled?

The first step was to select the enumeration areas in which the household and community surveys were to be administered. A challenge with migration surveys is to design a sampling strategy that ensures a significant representation of migrant households in the sample. Despite the relatively high incidence of international migration in the Dominican Republic, random sampling would not generate a sufficiently large sample of migrant households for the purpose of the project. Over-sampling of migrant households is therefore necessary. Since there are no national-level data with complete and up-to-date information on migration density, information about the prevalence of migration was based on multiple sources, including various household surveys and census data.1

The country is divided into 31 provinces and one National District (Distrito Nacional), in which the national capital is located. The provinces are the first-level administrative subdivisions of the country. Of these, 11 provinces from different regions were selected for enumerations.2 Four provinces were selected based on the magnitude and density of international migration. Each province was stratified into urban and rural areas.

The second step of the process involved creating a sampling frame. The Dominican National Census list of enumeration areas, last updated in 2010, was used to develop the sampling frame. From the sampling areas, 252 primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected for enumeration, 63 from each region. These PSUs were enumeration areas from the census list. The distribution of PSUs over urban and rural areas within the province was proportionate to the square root of the population in these areas. Within each of the eight strata, PSUs were randomly selected with a probability proportionate to the number of households in the PSU.

The last stage of sampling involved the selection of households for interview. For the sake of comparison, two groups of households were selected from the sampled enumeration areas: migrant households and non-migrant households. The target ratio for each group was about 50%. The size of the selected PSUs ranged from 30 to 200 households; nine households were to be selected from each PSU. The project set a target of interviewing 2 040 households. Since the average response rate in similar surveys in the Dominican Republic has been about 91% in recent years, the sampling framework included a total of 2 268 selected households in order to reach the target of 2 040 completed household interviews.

The emigration and immigration rates in the Dominican Republic are not high enough to allow for random sampling and at the same time reach the target of 50% migrant households in the sample. Households and communities were therefore sampled using multi-stage stratified cluster sampling. Since no data were available on which to base sampling of migrant households, all households in the 252 sampled PSUs were block listed prior to data collection. Block listing allowed households to be categorised into three groups: households without migrants, with immigrants and with emigrants and/or return migrants (Box 3.1), and enabled random sampling within each household group from the lists produced. In each PSU, three households were selected from each group, to reach nine households per PSU. In PSUs with less than three immigrant households, immigrant households were replaced by emigrant households, and vice versa. In PSUs with less than six migrant households (emigrant, return migrant and immigrant households combined), migrant households were replaced by non-migrant households.

Household surveys

The household survey data collection included two rounds of fieldwork. A first phase of interviews, from August to October 2014, collected data on 1 870 households, of which 808 (43%) were migrant households. This was an overall response rate of 82%, hence lower than the expected 91%; among emigrant households the response rate was only 71%. In order to increase the total number of households in the sample in general, and the number of emigrant households in particular, a second round of fieldwork was carried out in February 2015. Twenty additional PSUs were sampled, using the same sampling strategy as the first round. The selection of households gave priority to migrant households, and a total of 156 migrant households and 11 non-migrant households were interviewed in the second round. This brought the total number of households with a migrant (emigrant, immigrant or return migrant) to 964, or 47% of the sample, and the total number of households interviewed to 2 037 (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. Household distribution per region

Gran Santo Domingo

Región Norte

Región Este

Región Sur



















1 073











Sub total














2 037

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

The fieldwork was carried out by 24 interviewers and 6 supervisors, and questionnaires were administered in Spanish and Creole. Given that the large majority of immigrants in the Dominican Republic are from Haiti, it was important to allow them to be interviewed in their native language (Creole). A total of 30 enumerators were invited to the enumerator training, 24 of whom were eventually hired based on their performance during training and the pilot test. The enumerator and supervisor training lasted five days, plus two days of pilot interviews to test the questionnaire and one day to discuss the observations made during the pilot (see Annex 3.A1 for a summary of sampling design and fieldwork).

Community surveys

The community surveys were carried out with local government representatives (mayors, public servants or technical staff) with good knowledge of the community. Local governments play a key role when it comes to local development, for example in agriculture and infrastructure. A total of 54 communities were selected for enumeration. As the PSUs are small and do not represent administrative units, the geographical areas covered by the community questionnaires were substantially larger than the enumeration areas – one community covered multiple PSUs.

The questionnaire included around 75 questions to gather demographic, social and economic information on the communities, as well as specific questions on policies and programmes implemented in the localities, questions on the share of households that currently have a family member living in another country and their most common country of residence, and the most common occupational activities of those living in the community. A small team of enumerators with previous experience of similar surveys and local knowledge was recruited to carry out the interviews.

Stakeholder interviews

In order to supplement the quantitative data, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from different backgrounds were conducted using an interview guide developed by the OECD Development Centre. The guide was divided into five topics:

  1. general awareness of migration

  2. actions, programmes and policies directly related to migration

  3. main actions, programmes and policies likely to have a link with migration

  4. perceptions of migration-related issues

  5. co-ordination with other stakeholders on migration.

Questions for each topic were modified according to whether the institution interviewed was working on migration issues directly or indirectly, and its role vis-à-vis migration policy. A list of 40 potential stakeholder institutions was created in the selection process. The recruitment was however challenging due to the sensitivity of the topic in the Dominican Republic, and in the end 21 stakeholder interviews were carried out. The institutions selected included migration-related government agencies, non-migration related government, civil society organisations, the private sector, academics and international organisations. About half of the interviewees represented public institutions, both at national and regional level (Table 3.2). The interviews were conducted in Spanish by the core research team from CIES.

Table 3.2. Summary of interviewees for qualitative interviews, by type of organisation

Type of organisation

Number of interviews

Public institutions


International organisations/academia




Private sector




How were the data analysed?

Having described the tools used to collect data for the project, this section provides an overview of how the data were analysed, followed by a general overview of the key migration characteristics of the sample. The remaining chapters in the report present the results of the analysis on the links between migration and public policies.

The analysis in this report incorporates both statistical tests and regression analysis. Statistical tests determine the likelihood that the relationship between two variables is not caused by chance:

  • A t-test compares the means of a dependent variable for two independent groups. For example, it is used to test if there is a difference between the average number of workers hired by agricultural households with emigrants and those without.

  • A chi-squared test is used to investigate the relationship between two categorical variables, such as private school attendance (which only has two categories, yes or no) by children from two types of households: those receiving remittances and those not.

These types of statistical tests do not control for other factors. Regression analysis, on the other hand, is useful to ascertain the quantitative effect of one variable upon another while controlling for other factors that may also influence the outcome. The household and community surveys included rich information about households, their members, and the communities in which they live. This information was used to create control variables that were included in the regression models in order to single out the effect of a variable of interest from other characteristics of the individuals, households and communities that may affect the outcome, such as the household’s business investments or an individual’s plans to emigrate.

Two basic regression models were used in the analysis: ordinary least square (OLS) and probit models. The choice of which one to use depends on the nature of the outcome variable. OLS regressions are used when the outcome variable is continuous (i.e. can take on an infinite number of values). Probit models are used when the outcome variable can only take two values, such as owning a business or not.

The analysis of the interrelations between public policies and migration was performed at both household and individual level, though this depended on the topic and hypothesis investigated. The analysis for each sector is divided into two sections:

  • The impact of a migration dimension on a sector-specific outcome


  • The impact of a sectoral development policy on a migration outcome


The regression analysis rests on four sets of variables:

  1. Migration, comprising: (1) migration dimensions including emigration (sometimes using the proxy of an intention to emigrate in the future), remittances, return migration and immigration; and (2) migration outcomes, which cover the decision to emigrate, the sending and use of remittances, the decision and sustainability of return migration, and the integration of immigrants.

  2. Sectoral development policies: a set of variables representing whether an individual or household took part or benefited from a specific public policy or programme in five key sectors: the labour market, agriculture, education, investment and financial services, and social protection and health.

  3. Sector-specific outcomes: a set of variables measuring outcomes in the project’s sectors of interest, such as labour force participation, investment in livestock rearing, school attendance and business ownership.

  4. Household and individual-level characteristics: a set of socio-economic and geographical explanatory variables that tend to influence migration and sector-specific outcomes.

What do the surveys tell us about migration in the Dominican Republic?

Overall, the 2 037 household surveys collected information on 7 462 individuals. Of these, 1 016 were immigrants living in 529 households. This represented 26% of all sampled households (Figure 3.1, third pie chart). Only 3% of households (59 households) contained a return migrant: in all there was a total of 65 return migrants (Figure 3.1, middle pie chart). Data were also collected on 622 emigrants from 417 households, representing 20% of all households in the sample (Figure 3.1, first pie chart).

Figure 3.1. Immigrant households make up 26% of the surveyed households
Share of households, by migration experience

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

The split between emigration and return migrants in the sample was left to chance in the sampling of migrant households, whilst the share of immigrant households is a direct result of the sampling strategy. The emigrant and return migrant numbers hence reflect their relative importance. Figure 3.2 shows the prevalence of emigrant and return households by area, based on the household-level data. This shows that return migration is relatively rare, and more prevalent in urban than in rural areas.

Figure 3.2. Return migration is more prevalent in urban areas
Relative share of emigrant households and return migrant households (%)

Note: Only households with emigrants or return migrants are included. Households with diverse migration experience are households with both emigrants and return migrants.

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

Table 3.3 compares the characteristics of the sampled households according to their migration experience. Overall 23% of the households are rural, but this rate differs across groups. Households with returnees are the least likely to be found in a rural setting, with only 8%, while 31% of households with immigrants are rural. Households without migration experience tend to have the most members, averaging 3.9 people compared to 3.7 for households with emigrants and returnees, and only 3.2 for immigrant households. Immigrant households also have the lowest dependency ratio, at close to two adults of working age for every child or elderly person. Even so, immigrant households contain a relatively high share of children: about half of the immigrant households have at least one child between the age of 0 and 14 years, which is slightly higher than the share for emigrant households (47%) and households with return migrants (34%), but lower than that of households without migration experience (59%).

Table 3.3. Households with emigrants or return migrants are wealthier on average than non-migrant households
Characteristics of sampled households

Total sample

Households without migrants

Households with emigrants

Households receiving remittances

Households with returnees

Households with immigrants

Number of households

2 037

1 073 (53%)

417 (20%)

588 (29%)

59 (3%)

529 (26%)

Households in rural areas (%)







Household size, number of members







Dependency ratioa







Households with children (0-14 years, %)







Households with female household heads (%)







Share of households with at least one member that completed post-secondary education (%)







Wealth indicatorb







Households with members planning to emigratec (%)







Notes: The groups in the column headings are not mutually exclusive, e.g. a household with an emigrant and an immigrant falls both in the category of households with emigrants, and in the category of households with immigrants.

a. The dependency ratio is the number of children and elderly persons divided by the number of people of working age (15-65).

b. The wealth indicator is standardised ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating wealthier households.

c. The share of households with a member planning to emigrate is based on a direct question asked to all adults (15 years or older) on whether or not they have plans to live and or work in another country in the future.

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

Overall, about one in three households in the sample has a female household head. Households with emigrants have the highest share of female-headed households (45%), which is surprising given that 59% of all emigrants are women. Households with emigrants are the most educated, while households with immigrants are the least likely to have a member who has completed post-secondary education.

For the purposes of this project, a household-level wealth indicator was constructed based on questions in the household survey on the number of assets owned by the household, ranging from cell phones to real estate. The wealth indicator was created using principal component analysis. It suggests that households with emigrants, returnees, and households that receive remittances are the wealthiest households, while households with immigrants are the least wealthy.

The survey also asked whether or not members of the households aged 15 or over were planning to live or work in another country. On average, one in five households in the sample had a member who planned to emigrate. The data show that plans to emigrate are more prevalent in households which have migration experience. Among households with return migrants, 46% had a member who planned to emigrate. This rate includes return migrants themselves, 29% of whom were planning to emigrate again in the year following the survey.

Table 3.4 compares the characteristics of individuals (15 years and older) from the sampled households, broken down by whether they are emigrants, returnees, immigrants or lack migration experience. Return migrants are the oldest group, with an average age of 55, compared to non-migrants (40 years), current emigrants (39 years) and immigrants (31 years). While the share of women among the non-migrants is 52%, the groups with migration experience are less gender balanced. The share of women is highest among current emigrants, at 59%, while they make up only 46% of the return migrants, suggesting that women are more likely to emigrate more permanently, or that gender patterns in migration have been changing over time.

Table 3.4. A majority of emigrants are female
Characteristics of individuals from the sampled households



Return migrants


Number of individuals

4 380



1 016

Average age





Share of women (%)





Share of adults (25+) having completed post-secondary education (%)





Note: The group of non-migrants includes individuals in households without migrants. Only adults (15+) are included. To calculate education status, the analysis only included individuals aged 25 or over – the age by which they would have completed post-secondary level education.

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

Among all the individuals surveyed aged 25 and above, 14% have finished post-secondary education. Comparing education levels with migration experience, however, shows more marked differences. The most highly-educated group are emigrants, 23% of whom have finished at least post-secondary education. For both return migrants and non-migrants this share is 16%, while immigrants are the least highly educated group, with only 2% having completed at least post-secondary education. Among individuals planning to emigrate (not shown), 20% have finished post-secondary education.

Emigration patterns are similar for women and men

Data collected on emigrants included their current country of residence, the time since migration and the reasons they left. The destination countries are very similar for men and women, with the majority of emigrants living in the United States (Figure 3.3). Spain is the second most popular destination country for both women and men.

Figure 3.3. The majority of emigrants, both women and men, reside in the United States
Emigrants’ current country of residence (%), by gender

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

The three main reasons given for emigrating were to search for work (50%), for marriage or to reunite family (26%); and to support the family financially (10%; Figure 3.4). These reasons were similar for both men and women. About 18% of the emigrants left the Dominican Republic less than two years before the survey, while 41% left more than ten years previously. The time since emigrating differs between women and men. Women were more likely to have left more than ten years ago (47%) than men (34%).

Figure 3.4. Work related reasons are the main motivation to emigrate
Relative share of reasons for emigrating (%), by gender

Note: Respondents were given the chance to provide two reasons for emigrating, but only the first reason was taken into account.

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

Remittances are not received by all emigrant households

While remittances and emigration are linked, one does not necessarily imply the other. Among the 2 037 households surveyed, 15% had received remittances from a former member of the household (which represents 54% of households receiving remittances), while 13% received remittances from an emigrant who had never lived in the household (Figure 3.5). Overall 28% of all households (588) had received remittances in the 12 months leading up to the survey; 81% of emigrant households had received remittances. Sixty percent of emigrants had sent remittances in the past 12 months, either in cash or kind.

Figure 3.5. More than a quarter of surveyed households receive remittances
Share of households receiving remittances in the 12 months leading up to the survey (%)

Note: The category ‘households receiving remittances from former member’ does not imply that they solely receive remittances from a former member, it includes households that receive remittances also from other emigrants.

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

The average amount remitted by emigrants over the 12 months prior to the survey was DOP 56 516 (Dominican peso, equivalent to USD 1 306). Men and women remit at approximately the same rate: 80% of female and 79% of male emigrants send remittances home. The average amount sent by men is slightly higher, however: DOP 58 130 (USD 1 334) for men compared to DOP 55 443 (USD 1 281) for women.

The survey asked households receiving remittances from former members whether they undertook any major expenditures after the member left the household, such as taking out a loan or investing in productive or human capital. The top four activities undertaken by the households were taking out a bank loan, accumulating savings, repay debt, and paying for a household member’s health treatment (Figure 3.6). However, most households (63%) stated that they had not undertaken any of the suggested activities.

Figure 3.6. Taking out a loan and accumulating savings were the most common activities for remittance-receiving households
Activities undertaken by households following the emigration of a member

Note: The sample only includes households that receive remittances from a former member. The figure displays the seven most common activities reported by households. Respondents could specify different activities undertaken after a migrant left the household from the following list: taking a loan from a bank, take a loan from an informal source, paying for health treatment or schooling for a household member, accumulating savings, repaying a debt/loan, building or buying a home, building a dwelling to sell to others, buying land, and restoring or improving housing.

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

Return migration from the United States is the most common

Returnees’ former countries of destination are similar for women and men, and are very similar to the current emigrants’ countries of destination (Figure 3.7). Most return migrants come back from the United States, though the share is lower than the share of Dominican emigrants currently living there, which may suggest that emigrants to the United States are more likely to stay longer or permanently. The second largest group of return migrants returned from Spain. Half of the return migrants had spent less than two years in the country of destination. Similar to emigrants, the main reason for returnees’ initial emigration was to search for work, followed by marriage or to reunite family. The main reason to return was family related, while the second most common reason was a lack of legal status in the country of destination.

Figure 3.7. Most return migrants came back from the United States
Returnees’ former countries of destination (%)

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

Immigration largely involves people from low-income countries

The household survey included some additional questions for immigrants, including their reasons for migrating, their experience before migration and their experience of integration.

A large majority of the immigrants in the Dominican Republic (96%) were born in Haiti (Figure 3.8). Only 5% of women and 3% of men were born in other countries, mainly Spain and the United States. On average, immigrants have been residing in the Dominican Republic for about ten years. Six percent of the immigrants were reportedly seasonal migrants, regularly returning to their country of origin after doing seasonal work. Around 2% of immigrants have Dominican citizenship. One in five immigrants plan to permanently return to their country of origin in the future.

Figure 3.8. Immigrants in the Dominican Republic are mainly from Haiti
Immigrants’ country of origin (%), by gender

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

The main reasons for moving to the Dominican Republic include better job opportunities (52%), being closer to family or friends (10%) or because the immigrant knew people in the Dominican Republic (18%). Job-related reasons were more important for men, while being close to family or friends was more important for women (Figure 3.9). Fourteen percent of the immigrants reported having invested money in a business or property in the Dominican Republic, with slightly higher rates for women (15%) than for men (13%).

Figure 3.9. Most immigrants come to the Dominican Republic for work
Reasons to immigrate to the Dominican Republic (%), by gender

Source: Authors’ own work based on IPPMD data.

This chapter has presented the three tools used to collect data – household and community surveys and the qualitative stakeholder interviews – and the analysis techniques for exploring the links between migration, public policies and development. The following chapter takes a sector-by-sector approach to presenting the results of the data analysis, focusing on the labour market, agriculture, education, investment and financial services, and social protection and health.

ANNEX 3.A1. Summary of sampling design and fieldwork

Household survey overview

Number of strata

Two (urban and rural, migrant and non-migrant households)

Estimated percentage of population covered


Total number of Primary sampling units (PSU) sampled


Number of households interviewed

2 037

Number of enumerators


Number of field supervisors


Date of fieldwork

August 2014-February 2015

Days of fieldwork

Wednesday to Sunday

Hours of fieldwork


Languages used

Spanish and Creole

ANNEX 3.A2. Summary of the modules included in the Dominican Republic household survey

Module 1

Household roster

The household roster includes questions on household characteristics, including the number of household members, relationship to the household head, sex, age, marital status etc. The module asks about intentions to migrate internationally of all household members aged 15 and above. The module also includes questions to identify return migrants and immigrants.

Module 2

Education and skills

The education module records information on child school attendance and child labour. It collects information about language skills, the educational attainment of all members, and a series of policy questions related to education. Education programmes in the questionnaire include scholarships, conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and distribution of school supplies.

Module 3

Labour market

The labour market module collects information on the labour characteristics of all household members aged 15 and above. This includes employment status, occupation and main sector of activity; and means of finding jobs which include government employment agencies. It also asks if members of the household participated in public employment programmes and vocational training.

Module 4

Expenditures, assets, income

This module contains questions on household expenditure patterns, asset ownership and various types of income sources.

Module 5

Investment and financial services

The investment module covers questions related to household financial inclusion, financial training and information on businesses activities. It also collects information about the main obstacles the household faces to operate its business, and if the household received government support through for example subsidies and tax exemptions.

Module 6

Agricultural activities

The agriculture module is administered to households involved in agricultural activities including farming, livestock husbandry and aquaculture. It records information about the agriculture plot (number of plots, size, crops grown, how the plot was acquired and the market potential) as well as information about the number and type of livestock raised. The module also collects information on whether households benefited from agricultural policies such as subsidies, agricultural related training or crop price insurance.

Module 7


The emigration module captures information on all ex-members of the household 15-years and above who currently live abroad, and their characteristics such as sex, age, marital status, relationship to the household head, language skills and educational attainment. It also collects information on destination countries, the reasons the migrant left the country and the employment status of the migrant both at the time of emigration and in the destination country.

Module 8

International remittances

The remittance module collects information on remittances sent by current emigrants. It records the frequency of receiving remittances and the amount received, the channels through which remittances were sent as well as the usage of remittances.

Module 9

Return migration

The return migrant module collects information on all members of the household, 15-years and above, who previously lived abroad for at least three consecutive months and returned to the country. It records information about the destination country, the duration of migration as well as the reasons for emigration and for return.

Module 10


The immigration module is administered to immigrants of the household 15-years and above, and captures information related to citizenship, reasons for immigration, employment status and occupation prior to immigration, and investments in the host country. The module also includes questions on discrimination in the host country.

Module 11

Health and social protection

The module on health and social protection concerns all members of the household 15 years and above, and gathers information about health visits and health and employment protection.


← 1. Notably the 1991 demographic and health survey, the 2002 survey of Haitian Immigrants in the Dominican Republic (FLACSO), the IX National Housing and Population Census of December 2010, the multiple purpose surveys ENHOGAR-2007 and ENHOGAR-2011 and the 2012 National Survey of Immigrants (ENI). See Chapter 2 for more details on these surveys.

← 2. Distrito Nacional and Santo Domingo in the Gran Santo Domingo region; Santiago, Duarte and Valverde in the Northern o Cibao region; Peravia, Barahona and San Juan in the Southern region; San Pedro de Macorís, La Romana and La Altagracia in the Eastern region