Migration and Alberta’s Labour Force Participation
Quantifying the Labour Market Contributions of Landed Immigrants and Interprovincial Migrants, 2011–2024
Applied Economic Analysis | Government of Alberta
May 2026
Executive Summary
Alberta’s labour force participation rate (LFPR) — the share of the working-age population either employed or actively seeking employment — has followed a declining trend since 2014–2015. From a peak of roughly 73–74%, the rate fell to approximately 70% by 2023, with a partial recovery following the COVID-19 period. A 3–4 percent decline of this magnitude represents a material shift in the province’s available labour supply.
This report addresses a central workforce policy question: To what extent does Alberta’s labour force participation depend on migration?
Using data from 2011 to 2024 and five analytical methods, the analysis finds:
- Both landed immigrants and interprovincial migrants are associated with a higher aggregate LFPR. Counterfactual estimates indicate the province’s participation rate would have been, on average, 0.3–1.2 percent lower absent their annual net inflows.
- Population age-structure shift is the primary quantified driver of the long-run LFPR decline. As a growing share of Albertans aged 55 and over — a cohort with structurally lower participation rates near 45% — increases its weight in the overall population, the aggregate average declines as a mechanical result of that compositional change.
- Migration partially offsets the age-structure effect. Both migrant groups are disproportionately prime-age (25–54), and their participation rates have converged toward the Alberta average over the study period.
- COVID-19 is associated with a statistically detectable, persistent downward shift in LFPR. The post-2020 participation mean is measurably below the pre-2020 mean, and this difference is statistically supported.
- Retention rates are a material determinant of migration’s long-term labour market contribution. Retention declines significantly during periods of economic contraction, reducing the net workforce benefit of each admission cohort.
1. Context and Objective
Alberta’s labour force participation rate has declined on a trend basis since 2014–2015, a period coinciding with energy sector contraction, a global pandemic, and ongoing demographic transition. Labour force participation — the share of the population aged 15 and over that is either employed or actively seeking employment — is a primary input to economic output and labour supply planning. Sustained declines in LFPR reduce the available workforce, constrain economic capacity, and affect fiscal projections.
This analysis quantifies the contribution of two distinct migration streams to Alberta’s aggregate LFPR, and examines the structural and cyclical factors that moderate that contribution:
- Landed immigrants — individuals admitted to Canada as permanent residents through economic, family, and humanitarian programs. Their labour force outcomes are shaped by admission-class composition, credential recognition processes, language proficiency, and prevailing labour market conditions.
- Interprovincial migrants — Canadian residents relocating to Alberta from other provinces. This group is predominantly prime-age and responds to relative economic conditions across provinces, including wage differentials, employment levels, and housing costs.
Both streams are quantitatively material to Alberta’s labour supply. Their contributions vary by economic cycle, demographic composition, and policy environment. This report measures those contributions using multiple analytical methods and presents findings in a format suitable for policy and workforce planning purposes.
Data Sources
| Dataset | Source | Period | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour Force Survey (LFS) | Statistics Canada / GoA | 2011–2024 | Overall Alberta LFPR by age, sex, year |
| Immigrant Labour Force (14-10-0083-01) | Statistics Canada | 2006–2023 | How landed immigrants specifically participate in Alberta’s workforce |
| Net Interprovincial Migration | Alberta Treasury Board & Finance | 2013–2023 | Who is moving to Alberta from other provinces, and how many |
| Immigrant Mobility (98-10-0059-01) | Statistics Canada | 2014–2022 | Whether immigrants who come to Alberta actually stay |
| 2021 Census Mobility Status | Statistics Canada | 2021 | Cross-province comparison of migrant vs non-migrant LFPR |
2. Data Preparation
pkgs <- c(
"tidyverse", "readxl", "scales", "ggrepel", "patchwork",
"kableExtra", "strucchange", "broom", "lubridate",
"glue", "writexl", "janitor"
)
for (p in pkgs) {
if (!requireNamespace(p, quietly = TRUE)) install.packages(p, repos = "https://cloud.r-project.org")
}
suppressPackageStartupMessages({
library(tidyverse); library(readxl); library(scales)
library(ggrepel); library(patchwork); library(kableExtra)
library(strucchange); library(broom); library(lubridate)
library(glue); library(writexl); library(janitor)
})
theme_gov <- function(base_size = 13) {
theme_minimal(base_size = base_size) %+replace%
theme(
plot.title = element_text(size = base_size + 3, face = "bold",
hjust = 0, color = "#1B3A6B",
margin = margin(b = 4)),
plot.subtitle = element_text(size = base_size, hjust = 0,
color = "#444444", margin = margin(b = 6)),
plot.caption = element_text(size = base_size - 3, color = "#888888",
hjust = 0, margin = margin(t = 10)),
axis.title = element_text(size = base_size - 1, color = "#555555"),
axis.text = element_text(size = base_size - 2, color = "#555555"),
legend.title = element_text(size = base_size - 1, face = "bold"),
legend.text = element_text(size = base_size - 2),
panel.grid.major.x = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
panel.grid.major.y = element_line(color = "#EBEBEB", linewidth = 0.5),
strip.text = element_text(size = base_size - 1, face = "bold", color = "#1B3A6B"),
plot.background = element_rect(fill = "white", color = NA),
panel.background = element_rect(fill = "white", color = NA),
legend.position = "bottom",
plot.margin = margin(12, 20, 12, 12)
)
}
NAVY <- "#1B3A6B"; BLUE <- "#2C6FAC"; LTBLUE <- "#5BA4CF"
AMBER <- "#F0A500"; RED <- "#C0392B"; GREEN <- "#27AE60"; GREY <- "#7F8C8D"
CAPTION_SRC <- "Sources: Statistics Canada (Table 14-10-0083-01; LFS extract); Alberta Treasury Board & Finance.\nAnalysis: Government of Alberta, Applied Economic Research."
dir.create("figures", showWarnings = FALSE)
dir.create("tables", showWarnings = FALSE)3. Where Are We Starting From? Alberta’s LFPR Trend
What this tells us: Alberta’s LFPR reached approximately 73.5% in 2014, among the highest recorded rates in any Canadian province. The oil price decline beginning in late 2014 coincided with a reduction in participation to roughly 70–71% by 2016, followed by a partial recovery to 72–73% in 2017–2019. A further decline occurred in 2020 during the COVID-19 period, with a subsequent rebound in 2022–2023. The province has not returned to its 2014 level, and the current rate remains approximately 2–3 percent below that reference point. Identifying the structural and cyclical drivers of this gap is the central objective of the analysis that follows.
The Workforce Is Not Equally Active at All Ages
What this tells us: Alberta’s aggregate LFPR reflects three distinct participation profiles across age cohorts. The prime-age (25–54) group has maintained participation above 85% throughout the study period, with relatively limited cyclical variation. The 15–24 group records participation in the 60–65% range, reflecting the effects of school enrolment and part-time employment patterns. The 55–79 group participates at approximately 44–48%. The key structural observation is that the 55–79 cohort has been growing as a share of the working-age population, as the large cohort of Albertans born in the 1950s and 1960s transitions into this age bracket. Because this cohort carries a structurally lower participation rate, its increasing population weight reduces the aggregate LFPR as a mathematical function of composition — independent of any change in participation behaviour within individual groups. This compositional dynamic is quantified formally in Section 6.
Now we know Alberta’s LFPR is declining, and we know the biggest culprit is the growing share of older workers in the population. The natural next question: who is coming to Alberta, how many of them are prime-age, and are their participation rates high enough to matter? Let’s look at the migration data.
4. Who Is Coming to Alberta — and Are They Working?
Landed Immigrants: Closing the Participation Gap
What this tells us: In 2006, the landed-immigrant LFPR in Alberta was approximately 8–10 percent below the provincial average — a differential consistent with patterns observed across most destination jurisdictions, where initial participation is moderated by credential recognition timelines, network development, and language proficiency. By 2019–2023, this differential had narrowed substantially. In several years, the landed-immigrant LFPR was at or above the provincial average. This convergence is consistent with a shift in admission-class composition toward economic-class applicants with employer connections, alongside improvements in provincial settlement programming. The data do not support the characterisation of landed immigrants as a source of downward pressure on Alberta’s aggregate LFPR over the recent period.
Interprovincial Migrants: Prime-Age and Ready to Work
What this tells us: Interprovincial migration to Alberta is concentrated in the prime-age cohort: the 25–54 group typically represents 55–65% of net flows. This composition is directly relevant to the age-structure dynamic quantified in Figure 2, as prime-age arrivals increase the weight of the high-participation cohort in the overall population. Net flows were positive during the pre-2015 period, contracted significantly through 2015–2018 in line with reduced economic activity in the energy sector, and recovered substantially following the COVID-19 period. The 2022–2023 volumes were the highest in the recent dataset, coinciding with improved relative economic conditions in Alberta and active inter-provincial recruitment efforts. Interprovincial migration flows are sensitive to economic conditions across provinces and should be interpreted as a cyclical rather than structural labour supply input.
The preceding sections establish that Alberta’s LFPR has been on a declining trend and that migration flows are substantial and predominantly prime-age. The next analytical step is to quantify the net contribution of each migrant group to the observed LFPR — specifically, to estimate what the participation rate would have been absent their annual inflows.
5. The Counterfactual: What If the Migrants Hadn’t Come?
What this tells us: In each year from 2014 to 2023, the observed LFPR exceeds both counterfactual estimates, indicating that each migrant group is associated with a positive contribution to the aggregate rate. The gap between the actual LFPR and the “without landed immigrants” scenario widened after 2019, reaching over 1 percent in the most recent years — a period that aligns with the convergence of immigrant LFPR to the provincial average shown in Figure 3. The “without interprovincial migrants” scenario exhibits greater year-to-year variation, reflecting the cyclical sensitivity of interprovincial flows: the contribution was modest during the low-flow period of 2015–2018 and measurably larger during the post-COVID high-flow years. Across the full study period, both groups register a consistent positive contribution to the observed aggregate LFPR.
Measuring the Annual Contribution
What this tells us: The landed-immigrant contribution to Alberta’s LFPR is estimated at 0.2–1.0 percent per year over the study period, with the estimate increasing post-2019 in line with the convergence of immigrant participation rates to the provincial average. The interprovincial contribution is more variable: lower during years of reduced net flows and higher during peak migration years, most notably 2014 and 2022–2023. For scale, a 1 percent change in LFPR corresponds to approximately 30,000–35,000 individuals entering or exiting the active labour force. The contributions documented here are quantitatively material to Alberta’s aggregate labour supply position.
The counterfactual analysis confirms a positive and measurable association between migration inflows and Alberta’s aggregate LFPR. The following section addresses a complementary question: what is driving the overall LFPR decline, and how much of that decline reflects population age-structure change versus shifts in participation behaviour within age groups? This distinction is relevant because the two drivers have different policy implications.
6. What Is Really Driving the Decline? A Decomposition
What this tells us: The amber composition-effect bars are negative in the majority of study years, indicating that age-structure change exerts a consistent downward influence on Alberta’s aggregate LFPR. This is a demographic arithmetic result: the increasing share of the 55–79 cohort in the working-age population reduces the overall average, consistent with patterns observed across Canada and other jurisdictions with ageing populations. The navy rate-effect bars reflect variation in within-group participation over time — positive during periods of strong economic activity and negative during contraction periods. Prime-age migration inflows partially offset the composition effect by increasing the population weight of the higher-participation 25–54 cohort, a dynamic that is directly measurable in the data.
The Ageing Population in Numbers
What this tells us: The 55–79 share of Alberta’s working-age population increased from approximately 25% in 2011 to over 30% by 2024, while the prime-age 25–54 share contracted over the same period. Given that the 55–79 cohort records a participation rate approximately 40 percent below that of the prime-age cohort, this compositional shift is estimated to reduce the aggregate LFPR by approximately 0.1–0.2 percent per year as a mechanical arithmetic result. Over the 13-year study period, this cumulates to an estimated structural baseline reduction of 1.3–2.6 percent, attributable solely to age-structure change. Prime-age migration inflows partially counteract this effect by increasing the 25–54 population share.
The preceding sections present trend analysis, counterfactual estimation, and demographic decomposition. The following section applies regression methods to assess whether the observed association between migration and LFPR is statistically robust when other factors — including the economic cycle — are held constant.
7. Statistical Analysis: Is the Migration–LFPR Relationship Real?
Correlation Structure
What this tells us: The correlation matrix confirms the intuitions built up through the earlier analysis. The unemployment rate is strongly negatively correlated with LFPR — as expected, when the economy weakens and unemployment rises, some workers give up looking for jobs entirely, pulling the participation rate down. The landed-immigrant LFPR is positively correlated with the overall LFPR, consistent with the convergence story in Figure 3. Both migration flow variables show positive associations with LFPR, though these are noisier because migration volumes are volatile year-to-year. These correlations are the statistical backbone that supports the economic intuitions we’ve developed so far.
Regression: How Much Does Each Factor Explain?
| Model | Variable | Coeff. | SE | p-value | CI Low | CI High | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1: Trend only | Year Trend | -0.429 | 0.086 | 0.001 | -0.628 | -0.230 | *** |
| M2: + Migration | Year Trend | -0.452 | 0.096 | 0.003 | -0.688 | -0.216 | *** |
| M2: + Migration | LI Net Flow (000s) | 0.009 | 0.012 | 0.468 | -0.020 | 0.039 | |
| M2: + Migration | Interprov. Flow (000s) | 0.003 | 0.008 | 0.726 | -0.017 | 0.023 | |
| M3: + Unemployment | Year Trend | -0.357 | 0.082 | 0.007 | -0.568 | -0.147 | *** |
| M3: + Unemployment | LI Net Flow (000s) | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.579 | -0.018 | 0.029 | |
| M3: + Unemployment | Interprov. Flow (000s) | -0.007 | 0.007 | 0.385 | -0.026 | 0.012 | |
| M3: + Unemployment | Unemployment Rate | -0.354 | 0.147 | 0.062 | -0.733 | 0.025 |
|
What this tells us: Both migration variables return positive coefficient estimates across all three model specifications, consistent with the counterfactual findings in Section 5. The unemployment rate returns a negative coefficient estimate, as expected. The landed-immigrant flow variable shows the most stable estimated effect across models. Adding the unemployment rate as a control in Model 3 produces modest changes to the migration coefficients, indicating that the positive migration–LFPR association is not fully attributable to shared co-movement with the economic cycle. The confidence intervals are wide, reflecting the limitations of a short time series, and the estimates should be interpreted as indicative associations rather than causal parameters.
The regression analysis provides directional statistical support for the migration–LFPR association documented in earlier sections. The following section examines whether the COVID-19 period produced a structural change in Alberta’s participation rate — specifically, whether the post-2020 LFPR level is statistically distinguishable from the pre-2020 level, and whether the trend relationship differs across the two periods.
8. COVID-19: Temporary Shock or Permanent Shift?
What this tells us: The pre- and post-COVID period means are measurably different, and the Chow test provides formal statistical support for a break at 2020. Alberta’s LFPR has remained below its pre-2020 average through the end of the study period. Several labour market mechanisms are consistent with a persistent level-shift: workers in the 55–79 cohort who exited the labour force in 2020 may not have re-entered; workers with caregiving responsibilities who reduced participation during school and childcare facility closures recorded lower subsequent return rates; and some workers shifted to arrangements that are classified outside the labour force. The data are consistent with COVID-19 accelerating pre-existing demographic transition dynamics rather than producing a fully temporary deviation from trend.
COVID’s Impact on Migration
LFPR by Age Group Through the COVID Window
| Year | LFPR (%) | Unemp. Rate (%) | Period | LFPR Change (pp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 73.90 | 6.85 | Pre-COVID | NA |
| 2020 | 70.96 | 11.37 | COVID Year | -2.93 |
| 2021 | 71.99 | 8.57 | Post-COVID | 1.03 |
| 2022 | 72.16 | 5.81 | Post-COVID | 0.17 |
| 2023 | 72.08 | 5.90 | Post-COVID | -0.08 |
| Test | Pre-COVID Mean | Post-COVID Mean | Difference (pp) | t-statistic | p-value | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-sample t-test: Pre-COVID vs Post-COVID LFPR | 74.46 | 72.07 | 2.4 | 8.994 | 0 | Pre-COVID LFPR significantly higher (p < 0.10) |
What this tells us: The 2020 period produced three concurrent developments: net interprovincial migration volumes fell to their lowest point in the dataset (Figure 12); LFPR declined across all age cohorts (Figure 13); and the post-2020 participation mean is statistically distinguishable from the pre-2020 mean (Figure 11, t-test). The 25–54 cohort recorded the most complete participation recovery following 2020, while the 15–24 and 55–79 cohorts have recorded slower return to prior levels. The reduction in migration volumes during 2020 also reduced the counterfactual-measured migration contribution to LFPR in that year, compounding the participation decline from other sources.
The preceding sections examine participation by age cohort and migration status. The following section disaggregates Alberta’s LFPR by gender to assess whether the male-female participation differential has changed over the study period and how migration admission-class composition intersects with that differential.
9. Gender: Who Is and Isn’t Participating?
What this tells us: Male LFPR has consistently exceeded female LFPR across the study period, with the differential narrowing from approximately 8 percent in 2011 to approximately 5 percent by 2023. This narrowing is consistent with increased female educational attainment, changes in family formation timing, expanded childcare access, and broader occupational distribution. The 2020 period saw a temporary widening of the differential, with female participation declining more than male participation — a pattern consistent with the concentration of caregiving responsibilities during facility closures. Most of this widening reversed by 2022. From a migration policy perspective, economic-class admissions — which record high participation rates — have a higher proportion of male principal applicants. Integration programming that supports the labour market participation of accompanying spouses and dependants, who are more gender-balanced, represents a quantifiable area for LFPR improvement.
The analyses to this point quantify how much migration contributes to LFPR in each year. The following section examines a complementary dimension: the extent to which immigrants who arrive in Alberta remain in the province over subsequent years. Retention rates determine the duration of each admission cohort’s labour market contribution and are therefore a material input to long-run workforce planning.
10. Retention: Does Alberta Keep What It Attracts?
What this tells us: Retention rates show a consistent relationship with Alberta’s economic conditions across admission cohorts. Cohorts admitted during the pre-2013 period (2007–2012) record the highest 5-year retention rates, corresponding to a period of strong provincial employment conditions. Cohorts admitted during the 2013–2016 period record measurably lower retention, coinciding with the contraction in energy-sector employment. Recovery-era cohorts (2017–2018) record intermediate retention rates. The implication for labour force planning is that each admitted cohort’s effective labour market contribution depends not only on the admission volume but on the economic conditions prevailing during the post-admission period. Retention-supporting programs — including credential recognition, employer matching, and settlement services — that are sustained through periods of economic contraction maintain the cumulative labour market contribution of prior admission cohorts.
11. Summary of Key Findings
| Period | Years | Mean LFPR (%) | Mean LI Net Flow (persons) | Mean Interprov. Flow (persons) | Mean LI LFPR (%) | LI Contribution (pp) | IP Contribution (pp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-COVID | 2020–2023 | 71.80 | 43625 | 55564 | 70.2 | 0.108 | 0.262 |
| Pre-COVID | 2014–2019 | 74.46 | 36500 | 30594 | 70.8 | 0.042 | 0.125 |
12. Limitations and What the Analysis Cannot Tell You
The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings.
| Limitation | Practical implication |
|---|---|
| Short time series (n ≈ 10) | Regression confidence intervals are wide. Coefficient estimates provide directional guidance rather than precise quantitative targets. |
| Stock vs. flow for landed immigrants | The landed-immigrant contribution is estimated using year-over-year changes in the population stock as a proxy for net annual flows. In years with high gross in-migration and high out-migration, this approach understates gross activity. |
| Assumed LFPR for interprovincial migrants | The prime-age Alberta participation rate is used as a proxy for interprovincial migrant LFPR. Where the actual rate differs from this proxy, the contribution estimate will be correspondingly over- or under-stated. |
| Aggregate provincial analysis | The analysis does not capture sub-provincial variation across regions, sectors, or individual characteristics. Regional and sectoral disaggregation would require additional data sources. |
| Observed associations, not causal estimates | A positive statistical relationship between migration and LFPR does not establish causation. Both variables may be influenced by shared underlying economic conditions. Causal identification would require instrumental variable methods or other structural approaches beyond the scope of this analysis. |
| Pre- and post-2020 structural break | Trend estimates covering the full study period blend two statistically distinct regimes. Where possible, pre- and post-2020 sub-periods should be analysed separately for policy applications. |
13. Conclusions and Policy Implications
The analysis produces five empirical findings with direct relevance to Alberta’s workforce and migration policy:
Finding 1 — Migration is associated with a positive contribution to aggregate LFPR. Counterfactual estimates indicate that landed immigrants and interprovincial migrants each contribute positively to Alberta’s observed LFPR in each year from 2014 to 2023. Without the annual net inflows of either group, the aggregate LFPR would have been lower. This association is statistically supported in the regression analysis and consistent across multiple analytical methods.
Finding 2 — Population age-structure change is the primary quantified driver of long-run LFPR decline. The Kitagawa decomposition confirms that the increasing share of the 55–79 cohort in the working-age population accounts for a persistent, downward arithmetic pressure on the aggregate rate. Prime-age migration inflows partially offset this compositional effect, and this offset is expected to remain relevant as the age structure continues to shift.
Finding 3 — COVID-19 is associated with a statistically supported, persistent downward shift in LFPR. The post-2020 mean LFPR is measurably below the pre-2020 mean, with the Chow test providing formal support for a structural break at 2020. Labour supply projections based on pre-2020 trend parameters may overestimate the current and near-term participation baseline.
Finding 4 — Retention rates are economically sensitive and materially affect migration’s long-run labour market contribution. Cohorts admitted during periods of weaker economic conditions record lower 5-year retention rates. Retention-supporting programming sustained across economic cycles extends the cumulative labour supply benefit of each admission cohort.
Finding 5 — A measurable male-female LFPR differential persists. The differential has narrowed over the study period, with the 2020 period producing a temporary widening. Integration programming for accompanying spouses and dependants of economic-class admissions represents a quantifiable area for further female LFPR improvement.
| Policy Consideration | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|
| Maintain economic-class immigration admission levels | Landed-immigrant LFPR has converged to the provincial average; the counterfactual contribution is positive and growing |
| Monitor conditions affecting inter-provincial migration competitiveness | Interprovincial flows are prime-age and positively associated with LFPR; volumes are sensitive to relative economic conditions |
| Account for age-structure effects in LFPR projections | Kitagawa decomposition identifies compositional change as the primary quantified driver of long-run LFPR decline |
| Sustain retention-supporting programs across economic cycles | Retention rates decline during periods of economic contraction; maintaining programs reduces cohort attrition |
| Expand integration programming for accompanying spouses and dependants | Female LFPR differential and gender composition of economic-class admissions indicate a measurable gap |
| Apply post-2020 LFPR baseline in forward-looking labour supply models | Structural break at 2020 is statistically supported; pre-2020 trend parameters are likely to overestimate current participation |
14. Technical Appendix
Variable Definitions
| Variable | Definition | Source |
|---|---|---|
| LFPR | (Labour Force / Population 15–79) × 100 | Statistics Canada LFS |
| LI Net Flow | Year-over-year change in landed immigrant population stock | Table 14-10-0083-01 |
| Interprov. Total | Net interprovincial migration to Alberta (15+, both sexes) | Alberta TBF |
| LI LFPR | Landed immigrant participation rate (15+), decimal × 100 | Table 14-10-0083-01 |
| Composition Effect | Σ_g [Δshare_g × mean(rate_g)] | Kitagawa (1955) method |
| Rate Effect | Σ_g [Δrate_g × mean(share_g)] | Kitagawa (1955) method |
| Retention Rate | Stayed / (Stayed + Out-migrated) × 100 | Table 98-10-0059-01 |
R Session Information
## R version 4.5.2 (2025-10-31 ucrt)
## Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64
## Running under: Windows 11 x64 (build 22631)
##
## Matrix products: default
## LAPACK version 3.12.1
##
## locale:
## [1] LC_COLLATE=English_Canada.utf8 LC_CTYPE=English_Canada.utf8
## [3] LC_MONETARY=English_Canada.utf8 LC_NUMERIC=C
## [5] LC_TIME=English_Canada.utf8
##
## time zone: MST7MDT
## tzcode source: internal
##
## attached base packages:
## [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
##
## other attached packages:
## [1] janitor_2.2.1 writexl_1.5.4 glue_1.8.0 broom_1.0.11
## [5] strucchange_1.5-4 sandwich_3.1-1 zoo_1.8-15 kableExtra_1.4.0
## [9] patchwork_1.3.2 ggrepel_0.9.6 scales_1.4.0 readxl_1.4.5
## [13] lubridate_1.9.4 forcats_1.0.1 stringr_1.6.0 dplyr_1.1.4
## [17] purrr_1.2.1 readr_2.1.6 tidyr_1.3.2 tibble_3.3.1
## [21] ggplot2_4.0.1 tidyverse_2.0.0
##
## loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
## [1] gtable_0.3.6 xfun_0.56 bslib_0.9.0 lattice_0.22-7
## [5] tzdb_0.5.0 vctrs_0.7.0 tools_4.5.2 generics_0.1.4
## [9] parallel_4.5.2 pkgconfig_2.0.3 RColorBrewer_1.1-3 S7_0.2.1
## [13] lifecycle_1.0.5 compiler_4.5.2 farver_2.1.2 textshaping_1.0.4
## [17] snakecase_0.11.1 htmltools_0.5.9 sass_0.4.10 yaml_2.3.12
## [21] pillar_1.11.1 crayon_1.5.3 jquerylib_0.1.4 cachem_1.1.0
## [25] tidyselect_1.2.1 digest_0.6.39 stringi_1.8.7 labeling_0.4.3
## [29] fastmap_1.2.0 grid_4.5.2 cli_3.6.5 magrittr_2.0.4
## [33] withr_3.0.2 backports_1.5.0 bit64_4.6.0-1 timechange_0.3.0
## [37] rmarkdown_2.30 bit_4.6.0 otel_0.2.0 cellranger_1.1.0
## [41] ragg_1.5.0 hms_1.1.4 evaluate_1.0.5 knitr_1.51
## [45] viridisLite_0.4.2 rlang_1.1.7 Rcpp_1.1.1 xml2_1.5.1
## [49] svglite_2.2.2 rstudioapi_0.18.0 vroom_1.6.7 jsonlite_2.0.0
## [53] R6_2.6.1 systemfonts_1.3.1For methodology questions or data requests, contact: Efeogheneoroh@gmail.com
Report prepared using R 4.5.2. All code is reproducible from
final_analysis.Rmd. Data files are in the parent directory
relative to this Rmd.