Key note speech: Urban-rural linkages and migration: A potential for poverty alleviation in developing countries? Einhard Schmidt-Kallert, TU Dortmund, Germany The theme of this conference comes as a phrase with a question mark. This means: We have a fairly straightforward task ahead of us. We have assembled here to find some tentative answers to this question in the course of the next two days. Hopefully, by tomorrow evening we might be able to replace the question mark with a full stop or an exclamation mark! Among the three organisers of this conference we share the feeling that we have chosen a highly relevant question, both for spatial planning and for development cooperation. However, there are no easy and obvious answers. We have thus decided to approach our topic step by step, as you may have seen from the programme we have prepared for the conference: 1. In a first step we want to ascertain coping strategies and livelihood-strategies of (temporary) migrants; 2. In a second step we will look at migrants support networks, which more often than not are a precondition for engaging in multi-locational livelihood strategies: 3. Then we shall discuss existing responses by formal government institutions at all levels to migrants needs, and we shall look at the articulation between formal institutions and selfhelp networks; 4. Moving from the analytical to the action orientation, we shall then talk about appropriate policy recommendation directed at the various government levels; 5. And finally, and closely linked with the previous step, we intend to discuss suitable interventions by development cooperation to enhance urban-rural linkages in support of migrants. (see slide with chart) When we prepared the programme for this conference, my colleagues asked me, to give some kind of an introductory paper. (In addition, I would like to draw your attention to the background paper, which you find in your conference folder, which attempts a brief summary of the state of the art in the field of our conference). Introduction to the conference theme what does that entail? I understand my task in the following way: I will talk about how I think we should approach our topic, 1
I will talk on what we know already on our topic ( a very rough overview of the state of the art), But I shall also talk on what we do not know yet (knowledge gaps), but what we need to know, so as to come to terms with current challenges of migration. I am confident that in the course of the conference we shall be able to close some of the knowledge gaps. Others will certainly remain. In the next thirty minutes or so, I shall present twelve salient points or propositions, which I will subsequently elaborate briefly. Proposition 1: Tackling the conference theme requires a concerted effort of academic research and practitioners I am sure some of you will remember Robert Chamber s book Rural Development Putting the Last first, which was first published 25 years ago. His second chapter was entitled Two cultures of outsiders and started with the following statement: Outsiders polarise into two cultures: a negative academic culture, mainly of social scientists engaged in unhurried analysis and criticism; and a more positive culture of practitioners, engaged in time bounded action. Each culture takes a poor view of the other and the gap between them is often wide. I think all of us know what Chambers was talking about. To be sure, today the situation is not as pathetic as 25 years ago. But even today, there tends to be a marked barrier between the culture of academia and practitioners. There are two distinct worlds of knowledge generation, namely the research conducted at academic institutions, and, largely unrelated, the world of the booming consultancy industry. These consultancy reports are expected to help politicians in taking informed policy decisions. Only a limited number of individuals move freely between these two worlds. And there appears to exist a considerable degree of mistrust on either side of the divide. Academics consider many consultancy reports as shallow, while many consultants would rate much of the academic research as irrelevant. Obviously, in order to answer the key question of our conference, we need both. We need the analytical research results of many academic disciplines, and we need the action oriented know-how of practitioners and the body of knowledge generated by the consulting industry. Given the composition of participants at this conference, I am confident that we are in a good position to engage in this dialogue. 2
Proposition 2: We need to take an unbiased look at migration and identify both the potentials and the negative effects. In choosing the wording of the conference theme we deliberately emphasised the potentials and the positive effects of migration. This sharply contrasts with many recent events in Germany which usually associate the term migration with problems. Many of us are used to perceiving migration as a sign of crisis, we are used to discussing the negative social and economic effects of migration flows rather than the opportunities that the nexus migration and potential still comes as a surprise. The negative connotation of migration is typical of most government pronouncements and the public debate in Germany. But Germany is not unique in this respect. The negative perception of migration and migrants for that matter is prevalent in countries as diverse as India, South Africa or Russia. However, this general perception of migration has been changing of late. A case in point is the latest World Development Report, published by the World Bank late last year. The theme of the Report was the dynamics between leading and lagging regions. The authors of the Report described migration as one of the driving factors of development: Cities, migration and trade have been the main catalysts of progress in the developed world over the past two centuries. These stories are now being repeated in the developing world s most dynamic economies. Consequently the Report called on national governments to consciously take advantage of the opportunities migration offers. No doubt, many of the Report s policy recommendations are simplistic and hardly applicable to very poor countries. Many critics have noted that the Report failed to recognise the phenomenon of urbanisation in poverty. But the Report signifies a clear reversal in mainstream thinking on migration. But I think we should be unbiased. Migration is neither positive nor negative per se. We ought to be able to see the potentials and opportunities, but certainly we need to be conscious of the negative effects as well, such as economic hardships, loss of social networks, loss of identity and psychic stress. Proposition 3: We propose to focus on internal, not international migration. In our country at least international migration has attracted much more public debate than internal migration (again, I think, Germany is no exception in this respect). But in nearly every country of the world, internal migration flows outnumber international migration by far. In most countries 3
migration between regions, between cities and countryside, play a much greater role for territorial development than international movements of people. When we planned this conference, we thus decided to focus on internal migration. We did not want to host yet another conference on international migration. Admittedly, the distinction between international and internal migration is not always easy. Statistical definitions are often not sufficient. When people in the countries of the former Soviet Union move from Armenia to Russia, this does not feel like international migration. To them, international migration means going to Western Europe. Likewise, within West Africa, people are moving freely from Ghana to Togo or Benin, and the fact that they are crossing an international border may be less important to them than the common language and culture on either side of the border. Moreover, in many cases internal migration is a stepping stone for subsequent international migration. This essentially means: While we shall focus on internal migration, we should not only stick to the strict definition of the statisticians. Proposition 4: In the developing world non-permanent (seasonal, circulatory etc) forms of migration have become the dominant type of migration. Evidence from different parts of the world suggests that seasonal, circulatory and other forms of temporary migration are the dominant type of migration these days. Nevertheless, there is still the widespread belief that migrants all over the world take a once-in-a-lifetime decision to leave their home village and settle in the city. The assumption is that, by the second generation at the latest, the transition from a rural to an urban lifestyle will be complete. Kinship and family ties to the former rural homestead tend to become weaker in the process and may be severed altogether. This conventional paradigm is based on empirical observations of the urbanisation process in Europe, North America and Japan. Many academics and most practitioners assumed for a long time (and some still do) that the urbanisation process in Asia and Africa followed similar lines. This is certainly a typical Eurocentric abstraction which cannot be supported by empirical evidence. (Incidentally, recent studies by historians on the industrialisation process in the Ruhr Area provide evidence of circulatory migration at the height of the industrial revolution some 120 years ago). In the last two decades migration research in Asia and Africa has pointed to the importance of nonpermanent forms of migration. But quantitative evidence is scanty. Official statistics in most countries fail to capture part-time and seasonal occupations. Temporary or circular migrants do not 4
show up on household registration data and in census counts. In the words of Priya Deshingkar: This has the effect of making seasonal migration invisible. At least we know that there are 120 million temporary migrants in China, the so-called floating population, but this is due to the peculiar Chinese household registration system. Sometimes it is not easy to draw a clear dividing line between permanent and non-permanent migration though. All over the world, there are numerous cases of people who never intended to migrate for good, who had always dreamt of returning to their home base one day, but who had eventually ended up spending the rest of their lives in the city. The opposite can also be observed, though less frequently: There are migrants who had wanted to leave their home village for good, but who had returned, disillusioned and disenchanted at times, to their home base after a few years or after an entire working life. Proposition 5: We need to capture migrants livelihood strategies through an actor centred approach. Estimating the number of temporary migrants is an important task. Beyond the mere demographic description, a number of econometric studies on the spread and impact of migrants remittances have been published in recent years. To be sure, this is the bird s eye s view. In addition we need to study urban-rural linkages from the migrants own perspective. We need to listen to the people s own stories. But who are the actors on the ground? Some researchers focus on the individual migrant as the key actor. Many authors have emphasised the role of households in migration decisions. And they have pointed to the phenomenon of informal rural-urban exchange within spatially split household arrangements. The terms used to describe this phenomenon are: multi-locational household, multiple home household, multi-local household or split household. (Incidentally, Greiner and Schnegg have recently recommended to avoid the term household in this context altogether and to speak of multi-locational livelihoods in networks instead). Whatever term we prefer, people s livelihood strategies involving city and countryside (in multilocational households) are an important field for research. A wealth of relevant studies of this nature has been produced in recent years, and I hope a number of interesting life-stories of migrants will be told and re-told in the course of our conference. To give just one example, I would like to briefly touch on a fairly early study. I will report a few results of a research project on the living conditions of farmers in remote resettlement villages along Volta Lake in Ghana, Kofi Diaw and I conducted in the late 1980s. Among other things, we interviewed 5
farmers about their sources of livelihood. The interviews revealed a range of different sources of monetary and non-monetary income There was home consumption of subsistence yields, there was also barter trade among the villages. Yams, groundnuts and beans were bartered for fish. Some of the rural produce was also sold to traders and eventually entered the urban markets of the big cities. But one of the most interesting findings was that many households were spatially split. One or more family members lived in the city for cash. When necessary, some of these could be called on by the rural segment of the household to help out with tilling the land and sowing. Several months later, the situation would reverse. After the harvest, the urban household members received yams and other produce for their sustenance. In analysing the field data, we made an attempt to aggregate all sources of income and nonmonetary income equivalents, such as gifts received or bartered, at the household level. (see slide) As a result one can say, household A 107 is better off in terms of cash income and has more means of survival at its disposal than household B 97, but household B97, which is a bi-locational household and can count on remittances and gifts from urban family members has the better risk-minimising strategy, is more robust and resilient. 6
Sources of livelihood in two households in Amankwakrom (resettlement village on Volta Lake) Hh B 97 Hh A 107 Sum: 162,000 Cedis p.a. Sum: 273,000 Cedis p.a. This case shows: Split households consciously live in two locations, which are sometimes far away from each other. Their livelihood strategy takes advantage of both urban and rural opportunities. Although split households do not generally have a higher income at their disposal than those based in a single location, they do spread risks better. But the combination of urban and rural livelihoods is not only about increasing economic resilience. For the urban based members of a split household, the rural part of the household may fulfil an important social function, for instance for child rearing, for schooling of kids (as in China), and care for the sick and elderly. (Some authors have suggested differentiating between coping strategies of very poor households and livelihood strategies of those who are a bit better off and who have choices). Proposition 6: The internal organisation, as well as power relations within multi-locational households, have a bearing on livelihood strategies. Listening to the migrants stories goes beyond recording the volume of remittances and establishing reciprocity in the exchange of goods and services. Researchers need to understand the internal household dynamics as well. This entails factors like age and seniority, gender and all internal power relations. Which family member moves first? Is the notion correct that the household delegates a young member to the urban labour market? To what extent is such a decision prompted by the 7
individual s preferences? Or are such decisions imposed by the head of household on the younger members of the family? Gender is important as well. Evidence from different parts of the world suggests that migration has become more female over the last two decades. What is the significance of this development? Obviously, the internal household dynamics and power relations are likely to have an impact on livelihood strategies pursued by the households. Whether migrants remittances are used for consumptive or productive purposes is ultimately dependent on who decides on the household budget. More research is needed in this field. Proposition 7: We need to understand economic and social support networks which make multi-locational livelihood strategies possible. Multi-locational livelihoods require the support of family/ or home/ village-based social networks, for example home-town associations. They provide an important link between the rural and the urban household part. Improved start-up conditions for newly arrived migrants in cities and information on job opportunities or housing are another positive aspect of social networks. Migration and multi-locational livelihood strategies are often only possible with the support of migrant networks. The reverse is also true: Migrant networks have, in many instances, an important role in triggering migration. Migrant networks may span over short or large distances, transcend provincial, regional or even national borders. And, very important: They tend to be more flexible than formal governance structures. Proposition 8: We need to understand the specific articulation between migrants networks and formal governance. Formal government institutions can facilitate, but they can also impede informal urban-rural linkages. Case studies especially from Asia have shown that migrants support networks have in many cases horizontal linkages with local government institutions. But in other settings local government institutions know surprisingly little about migrants and their needs and aspirations. It would appear that at the regional or national governance level such linkages are extremely uncommon. There is definitely a need for more institutional studies on this linkage between migrant support networks and formal governance. This applies both to the areas of origin and the migrants areas of destination. 8
For, the inherent potential of informal rural-urban linkages for regional development can only be tapped if the efforts of migrants informal networks are interwoven with government policies. Proposition 9: Multi-locational livelihood strategies have a potential for poverty alleviation. Multi-locational livelihood strategies make households more resilient. They combine rural and urban income opportunities, and they combine formal and informal sector activities. But scaling up an individual household s livelihood strategy to a poverty alleviation project for a locality, an area or a region requires a concerted effort of many actors. After all, it is a complicated endeavour to intervene in a person s decisions, on what to use their money for. Channelling migrants remittances into productive investments could be an important step into this direction. Numerous studies on the flow and utilisation of migrants remittances that have been published in recent years constitute an extremely valuable data base for this purpose. Proposition 10: Multi-locational livelihood strategies have distinct ecological effects. The members of multi-locational households take advantage of the opportunities of two or more locations. This means by implication that they utilise the natural resources at both places; they make an impact on the environmental conditions in each location. Just as they spread the risks in their household economy, they also spread the environmental impact of their economic activities. Depending on the setting, this may be advantageous or detrimental to the environment. To give an example: Our Department has been involved in a research project on the Kakamega Forest in Kenya and its livelihood support zone. One of the findings was that households who receive remittances from urban based family members are less dependent on the illegal off-take of forest resources. Proposition 11: Non-permanent migration and multi-locational livelihood strategies require a package of tailormade policy interventions on the part of all levels of government. Now I am moving to the action oriented part of our agenda. We will have four parallel workshops tomorrow to brainstorm on appropriate action fields and possible interventions. I do not want to pre-empt this exercise here. But let me share one observation with you: In many cases interventions, which benefit migrant households do not require large investment sums. Often it is the simple things which make a difference, which make life easier. Such as organised channels for money transfer, 9
organisational and management support for migrants associations, co-management of social infrastructure by local government and migrants associations etc. Other interventions require more sustained efforts and sometimes ingenuity. This applies for example to new forms of inter-agency coordination between migrants sending and receiving regions. Or even new types of governance which transcends the urban-rural divide. Proposition 12: Non-permanent migration and multi-locational livelihood strategies ought to be integrated into territorial development strategies. State-of-the-art strategies of regional development subscribe to the philosophy of discursive planning. Territorial development in this notion ought to be a moderated process involving multiple stakeholders from government, the private sector and civil society. Undoubtedly multi-locational households are in many countries important stakeholders, though often stakeholders without a voice. Their representatives and organisations or associations are to be involved in the planning process. Talking about substantive aspects of planning, such as territorial integration, economic growth or spatial equity, the economic circuits emanating from multi-locational livelihood strategies could be an extremely important ingredient for future regional development. 10