Kunal Keshri (kunalkeshri.lrd@gmail.com) (Senior Research Fellow, e-mail:) Dr. R. B. Bhagat (Professor & Head, Dept. of Migration and Urban Studies) International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai (INDIA) International Seminar on Internal Migration and Urbanization and their socioeconomic Impacts in Developing Countries: Challenges and Policy Responses, Organized by the IUSSP Scientific Panel on the Impact of Internal Migration and Urbanization in Developing Countries and Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China, 10-12 December, 2011
Introduction Literature Review Need for the Study Objectives Data Analytical strategy and cataloguing of variables Results and discussion Regional pattern of temporary migration Characteristics of temporary migration Factors associated with temporary migration Conclusions
Temporary migration, often used interchangeably with circular, seasonal, short-term and spontaneous migration, has been a subject of much discourse. According to, Zelinsky (1971) all the movements, usually short-term, repetitive or cyclic, having a common motive of temporary change of residence, are circulation. Circular Migrants follow a circular flow and maintain continuous but temporary absences from place of origin for more than one day (Hugo 1982). According to the school of New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) temporary migration is considered as a risk diversification strategy
Temporary or circular migration is a move made for a short period of time with the intention of returning to the place of usual residence. An important group of temporary migrants consists of seasonal migrants, those who combine activity at several places according to seasonal labour requirements (Keshri and Bhagat, 2010). It is the most significant livelihood strategy, adopted among the poorest sections in rural India. Landless agricultural labourers of Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and Jharkhand trapped in debt bondage and belong to lower social strata i.e. scheduled tribes and scheduled castes migrate seasonally within or outside the state..
Temporary Migration Socio-economic implications (Hugo,1982) Association with Household well being (Brauw, 2007) Helps in securing household survival as well as in securing household income (Pham and Hill, 2008) Effect of individual and household factors in temporary migration and its frequency (Yang, 1992) Gender differences in migration decision (Yang and Guo, 1999) Land less and small land holders migrate more (Hugo, 1985; Vanwey, 2003)
Large scale inter and intra state temporary migration (Breman, 1996; Deshingkar and Farrington, 2009) Seasonal Labour mobility from Jharkhand to West Bengal (Rogaly et. al., 2001) They are absorbed in the informal sector of urban economy (Haberfeld et. al., 1991; Mosse et. al., 2005; Vijay, 2005) Only survival options for landless labourers (Breman, 1994) Dominance of socio-economically underprivileged groups (Bird and Deshingkar, 2004; Gnanou, 2008; Mosse et. al., 2005) Female migration is equal to males in short duration movements (Rao, 2005)
Why this Study???? Despite large scale temporary migration macrolevel research has been ignored Data constraints at national level: Neither Census nor The Indian National Sample Survey? A detail information on temporary/seasonal migration is collected in the recently available data of Indian National Sample Survey Comparatively large sample size of temporary migrants which is nationally representative for state wise analysis
The broad objective of this study is to explore the phenomenon of temporary/seasonal migration in India and states, specific objectives are as follows: To study the regional/state wise pattern of temporary migration To study the characteristics of temporary migration To examine its association with social and economic factors.
Data source: Unit Level Data of 64 th round of National Sample Survey (NSS), 2007-08 Employment & Unemployment and Migration Particulars schedule (schedule no. 10.2) of 64 th round of NSS Sample households: 1,25,578 households (Rural-79,091, Urban-46,487) Sample persons: 572,254 persons (Rural-3,74,294, Urban-1,97,960) Four sub-rounds of equal numbers of sample village/blocks
Usual place of residence (UPR) Usual place of residence was defined as a place (village/town) where person had stayed continuously for a period of six months or more. Migrant A household member whose last UPR, was different from the present place of enumeration was considered as a migrant member in a household.
If any household member stayed away from village/town for 30 days or more but less than 6 months during last 365 days for employment or in search of employment he was considered as a temporary migrant Number of spells a period of staying away from the village/town for 15 days or more was termed as a spell Destination during longest spell same district (1. Rural, 2. Urban) same state but another district (3. Rural, 4. Urban) another state (5. Rural, 6. Urban) another country
Association between socio-demographic factors with temporary migration has been assessed by using following indicators: Economic variables: Monthly Per-capita Consumer Expenditure (MPCE), Educational attainment, and possession Socio-demographic variables: Social group/caste, religion, size of the household, sex, marital status, residence of state
Migration rate has been calculated using following formula Migration rate = State-wise estimates of temporary migrants have been produced Total monthly household expenditure was divided from the household size and then households were distributed into equal percentile groups which were termed as Monthly per Capita Consumer Expenditure (MPCE) quintiles to provide a proxy of economic status of the household. Mean MPCE and MPCE quintiles have been constructed separately for rural and urban areas of each of the major state of India.
Four binary logistic regression models were fitted Dependent variable: 1: If a person is temporary migrant 0: Otherwise. Model I (Rural sample) & Model III (Urban Sample) : MPCE (Low, medium and high), educational attainment and social group/caste Model II (Rural sample) & Model IV (Urban Sample): age, religion, household size, sex, marital status and state have been added as control variables
Results 1/12
Results 2/12 India West Bengal Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Punjab Orissa Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Kerala Karnataka Jharkhand Jammu and Kashmir Himachal Pradesh Haryana Gujarat Chhattisgarh Bihar Assam Andhra Pradesh 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 7 5 7 6 4 7 6 4 6 6 8 8 8 6 7 8 10 12 16 17 16 18 17 19 20 21 21 24 26 26 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Migration rate (per 1000) 37 42 44 51 54 Urban Rural
60 50 Rural Migration Rate Mean Rural MPCE 42 44 51 54 1200 1000 40 37 800 30 20 16 16 17 17 19 20 21 21 24 26 26 600 400 10 6 7 7 7 8 200 0 0 Results 3/12
20 18 16 Urban Migration Rate Mean Urban MPCE 18 2000 1800 1600 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 10 12 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 Results 4/12
120 Lowest Lower Medium Higher Highest 100 80 60 40 20 0 Results 5/12
35 30 Lowest Lower Medium Higher Highest 25 20 15 10 5 0 Results 6/12
80 70 Below Primary Primary or Middle Secondary or Highr Secondary Graduate or Above 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Results 7/12
180 160 Scheduled tribes Scheduled castes Other backward classes Others 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Results 8/12
Results 9/12 Rural (N=235682) Covariates Model I Model II MPCE Tertile Low 1 1 Medium 0.63*** 0.71*** High 0.39*** 0.53*** Educational Attainment Below primary 1 1 Primary or middle 1.38*** 0.67*** Secondary or higher 0.79*** 0.47*** Land Possession Less than 1 hectare 1 1-4 hectare 0.77*** More than 4 hectare 0.54*** Social Group Scheduled Tribes 1 1 Scheduled Castes 1.12*** 0.60*** Other Backward Classes 0.90*** 0.52*** Others 0.69*** 0.47*** Religion Hindu 1 Muslim 1.21*** Others 0.81* Size of the Household Less than 5 1 5 or more 1.04 Sex Male 1 Female 0.13*** Marital Status Single 1 Currently married 1.57***
Results 10/12 Urban (N=134922) Covariates Model III Model IV MPCE Tertile Low 1 1 Medium 0.57*** 0.65*** High 0.39*** 0.58*** Educational Attainment Below primary 1 1 Primary or middle 1.01 0.58*** Secondary or higher 1.37*** 0.43*** Land Possession Less than 1 hectare 1 1-4 hectare 1.33 More than 4 hectare 3.70*** Social Group Scheduled Tribes 1 1 Scheduled Castes 0.67*** 1.71* Other Backward Classes 0.55*** 1.70* Others 0.41*** 1.41 Religion Hindu 1 Muslim 1.30* Others 2.19*** Size of the Household Less than 5 1 5 or more 0.84* Sex Male 1 Female 0.17*** Marital Status Single 1 Currently married 0.85*
Rural (N=235682) Model I Model II State Rajasthan 1 Andhra Pradesh 0.77** Assam 0.74* Bihar 2.00*** Gujarat 2.09*** Haryana 0.31*** Himachal Pradesh 0.50* Karnataka 0.66*** Kerala 0.48*** Madhya Pradesh 1.30*** Maharashtra 0.76*** Manipur 0.26* Meghalaya 0.73* Nagaland 2.64** Orissa 0.59*** Punjab 0.46*** Tamil Nadu 0.78** Tripura 0.12*** West Bengal 1.28*** Chhattisgarh 0.61*** Jharkhand 1.38*** Results 11/12
Urban (N=134922) Model III Model IV State Rajasthan 1 Andhra Pradesh 0.37*** Arunachal Pradesh 3.54* Assam 3.83** Bihar 1.60* Haryana 0.40* Maharashtra 0.40*** Nagaland 12.98*** Punjab 0.34** Uttar Pradesh 0.65* Tamil Nadu 1.43* Jharkhand 0.20* Uttaranchal 0.28* Results 12/12
Regional variations of temporary migration are noteworthy in country. The states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and Nagaland have very high intensity of migration. Stark rural-urban differentials in the intensity of temporary migration. Overall, propensity of temporary and seasonal migration declines with the increase in economic condition and educational status.
Social factors play a critical role in migration decision. People belonging to scheduled tribes have higher chances to migrate seasonally than other social groups. In short, the study concludes that temporary mobility is higher among the poorer sections of Indian society irrespective of the level of economic development of the concerned states.