Labor Migration in India

R. Lusome*

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to examine the extent of employment oriented migration in India. It is found that the percentage is very small for employment oriented migration. However, an analysis of work force participation using NSSO 55th Round data on migration reveals that irrespective of the reasons for migration, work participation of the migrants increased steeply in the past migration period. The paper also explains these differences by taking into account duration and educational level of the migrants. Results show that educational level play a greater role in explaining the difference in employment oriented migration while duration since migrated explains better the differential in labor force participation of the migrants.

Ph.D. Scholar, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India.

Introduction Migration from one area to another in search of improved livelihood is a key feature of human history. While some regions and sectors fall behind in their capacity to support populations, other move ahead and people migrate to access these emerging opportunities. Industrialization widens the gap between rural and urban areas, including a shift of the workforce towards industrializing areas. There is extensive debate on the factors that causes populations to shift from those that emphasize individual rationality and household behavior to those that cite the structural logic of capitalist development. Migration has become a universal phenomenon in modern times. Due to the expansion of transport and communication, it has become a part of worldwide process of urbanization and industrialization. In most countries, it has been observed that industrialization and economic development has been accompanied by large-scale movements of people from villages to towns, from towns to other towns and from one country to another country. From the demographic point of view, migration is one of the three basic components of population growth of any area, the other being fertility and mortality. But whereas both fertility and mortality operate within the biological framework, migration does not. It influences size, composition and distribution of population. More importantly, migration influences the social, political and economic life of the people. Indian constitution provides basic freedom to move to any part of the country, right to reside and earn livelihood of their choice. Thus, migrants are not required to register either at the place of origin or at the place of destination. A number of economic, social, cultural and political factors play an important role in the decision to move. The effects of these factors vary over time and place. Analysis of labor migration is important to understand the peoples movement within the country as a response to changes in economic, political and cultural factors (Singh, 1998). In India, permanent shifts of population and workforce co-exist with the circulatory movement of populations between lagging areas and developed regions and between rural and urban areas, mostly being absorbed in the unorganized sector of the economy. In 2001, Indias population exceeded 1 billion, with 67.2 percent of the population living

in rural areas and the other 32.8 percent in towns and cities. Of the total workforce, 73.3 percent remained in rural areas, while the rest 26.7 percent are in urban areas (Census 2001). Internal migration is now recognized as an important factor in influencing social and economic development, especially in developing countries. Indian censuses record that in 2001, 309 million persons were migrants based on place of last residence, which constitute about 30% of the total population of the country. This is nearly double the number of internal migrants as recorded in the census of 1971 (159 million). This suggests that socio-economic changes in the last three decades have greatly affected the mobility of the population (Lusome, 2006). Migration is defined as a move from one migration defining area to another, usually crossing administrative boundaries made during a given migration interval and involving a change of residence (UN 1993). The change in residence can take place either permanent or semi-permanent or temporary basis (Premi, 1990). A recent survey shows that census is the largest source of information on internal migration at the cross-country level. A study shows that 138 countries collected information on internal migration in their censuses compared to 35 through registers and 22 from surveys (Bell, 2003). In India, information on migration has been collected in a number of large scale and localized sample surveys. While the population census remained the most extensive source of migration data, sample surveys on migration has become popular for an indepth analysis of migration. Data and methods The paper uses data from Census of India 2001 as well as data from the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) 55th Round on Migration. According to Indian Census, a person is considered a migrant if birthplace or place of last residence is different from place of enumeration. The National Sample Survey Organization of Government of India carried out an all-India survey on the situation of employment and unemployment in India during the period July 1999-June 2000. This 55th Round Data was published in

August 2001. In this survey, data was collected on migrants as well. It defines a migrant as a member of the sample household who had stayed continuously for at least six months or more in a place other than the place of enumeration. It collects the reasons for leaving the last usual place of residence under the following heads: (a) in search of employment (b) in search of better employment (c) to take up employment/better employment (d) transfer of service/contract (e) proximity to place of work (f) studies (g) acquisition of own house/flat (h) housing problems (i) social/political problem (j) health (k) marriage (l) migration of parent/earning member of the family and (m) others.

A simple analysis using bivariate tables has been carried out in the paper to bring out the extent of employment oriented migration in India. Moreover, the paper also attempts to study the difference between the stated reasons for migration and the labor force participation, taking into account duration and educational qualification of the migrants. Employment oriented migration Employment oriented migration is obtained by combining the migrants that have given work/employment and business as their reason for migration. It is found that employment oriented migration is quite small, particularly among female migrants with just around 2 percent of total female migrants giving employment or business as the reason for their migration. <Table 1 here> As shown by Table: 1, it is however clear that migration towards urban areas are still more likely to be associated with employment oriented reasons. It is also seen that the percentage of employment migration for males are quite high, whether it is rural-bound or urban-bound migration. It is interesting to observe that out of the total rural-bound male migration, 40 percent have moved for work related reasons.

<Table 2 here> From Table: 2, we see that the percentage of employment oriented migrants is quite high for migrants moving from urban areas. More than half of male migrants in the urban to rural streams have moved for work or business purposes. Looking at the interstate streams of migration, nearly 41 percent of migrants have stated work or business as their reasons of their move from urban to rural areas. Two-third of males from urban to rural areas have migrated for employment and related reasons. The following tables (Table 3 onwards) are obtained from the NSSO 55th Round on Migration. NSSO collects data on both temporary and long term migrants. However, the paper has considered only the long term migrants for the following analysis. In the following analysis, employment oriented migrants are the migrants who had given reasons (a) to (e) for their move. Labor force participants are the migrants who are currently employed or are seeking or available for work. <Table 3 here> Table 3 gives the percentage of migrants who have given employment related reasons for migration vis--vis labor force participation by sex and rural urban status. Table 3 gives the percentage of migrants giving employment and related reasons for migration vis--vis the labor force participation of the migrants. It is clearly seen from the table that nearly 46 percent of male migrants have reported employment related reasons as their motive behind migration, while it is just above 2 percent of female migrants that have reported employment and work related reason for their move. Comparison with census figure in table 1, it is learnt that the sample survey data (7%) shows a smaller percentage of employment oriented migrants in rural areas than the census (10%). This could be the result of the difference in the definition of migrants in the two data sources. Circular migrants and temporary migrants could not be captured by the present dataset of the NSSO.

If we further compare employment oriented migrants and the labor force participation of the migrants, it is evident that more migrants are in the labor force, be it male or female migrants. Around 38 percent of total migrants are in the labor market with 70 percent of males and 26 percent of females. This is in vast contrast to the stated reasons for migration particularly for females, among which just a meager 3 percent have given employment and work related reasons. <Table 4 here>

Table 4 dissects the vast difference between stated reasons and labor participation into different streams of migration. Here, the biggest difference is seen in the rural to rural stream, with around 6 percent employment oriented migrants while 38 percent from this stream are in the labor force. The difference is smaller in urban bound migration when compared with rural bound migration. The gap between employment oriented migration and labor force participation further decreases for the interstate streams of migration. Though, there is gap for male and female migrants, it is clear that greater difference is seen among female migrants. <Table 5 here> Table 5 shows the percentage of labor migration by educational qualification and duration since migration. It is seen from the table that at higher educational qualification level, higher percentage of migrants is migrating for employment or work related reasons irrespective of duration since their migration. Sex differential are clearly seen in all duration and educational level, with the percentage of employment oriented female migrant ranging from as low as 1 percent in illiterate and primary category to about 10 percent in graduate & above category migrated within 1-4 years. A meager 2 percent of illiterate female have migrated for employment or work related reasons compared to above 7 percent of graduate and above female migrants. Higher percentage of male have migrated for employment and related reasons, ranging from around 37 percent in primary

category to about 59 percent in graduate and above category. From the table it is also seen that recent migrants are more likely to have moved for employment or related reasons. However, it is noted that about 58 percent of male migrants who migrated 15-19 years back reported employment and work related reasons for migration. <Table 6 here> Table 6 gives the percentage of labor force participation of migrants by educational qualification and duration. From the table, it is seen that the percentage of labor force participation is greatest among graduate and above migrants and lowest among primary educated migrants. It is surprising to note that labor force participation is greater among illiterate migrants than primary educated migrants. A positive relationship of duration with labor force participation is evident from the table. However, highly qualified recent migrants are more likely to be in the labor force than illiterate migrants of any duration. <Graph 1 here> The following graph 1 shows the gap between the stated reasons for migration and labor force participation by education and duration. As could be seen from the graph, the difference is wider for the illiterate and the highly educated migrants, significantly for the migrants of 15-19 years duration.

Discussion An analysis of labor migration from the census collected or survey collected reasons grossly underestimate the extent of labor migration in India. It ignores the fact that migrants irrespective of their reasons could be in the labor force. This become relevant particularly for female migrants who have moved for marriage, but might also be the leading earner of the family. Moreover, census and sample surveys recorded only the most important reason for migration. Even though the gap between stated reasons and labor participation is justified, one may need to look into why the gap is wider for rural bound migrants or why the gap decreases

for interstate migrants? Is it possible that rural bound migrants are shying away from reporting their move as employment oriented or are they being in the labor force out of lack of choices? This definitely calls for further analysis of the data available.

References Bell, Martin. 2003. Comparing Internal Migration between Countries: Measures, Data Sources and Results. Paper Presented in Population Association of America 2003, Minneapoplis, May 1-3. Census of India 2001. Soft copy, India D-series, Migration Tables. Registrar General and Census commissioner, India. Lusome, R., Bhagat, R.B. 2006. Trends and Patterns of Internal Migration in India, 1971-2001. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Indian Association for the Study of Population (IASP), Thiruvananthapuram 7-9 June, 2006. Singh, D.P., 1986. Internal Migration in India: 1961-1991 Demography India 27(1): 245-261. Premi, M. K., 1990. India. In Charles B. Nam, William J. Serow, and David F. Sly (eds.), International Handbook on Internal Migration. New York: Greenwood Press. U.N. 1993. Readings in Population Research and Methodology, The United Nations Population Fund, New York.

Tables

Table 1: Employment Oriented Migration (in %) Total Male Female Total

Source: Census 2001

Rural 39.8 1.7 10.3

Urban 36.0 3.3 17.2

31.1 1.9 10.4

Table 2: Percentage of employment oriented migrants by streams of migration Total Rural to rural Rural to urban Urban to rural Urban to urban Interstate migration Total Rural to rural Rural to urban Urban to rural Urban to urban
Source: Census 2001

Male 25.3 25.9 55.2 38.8

Female 1.3 2.8 4.1 3.6

4.9 10.9 28.3 19.5

Male 51.3 41.4 66.6 51.8

Female 4.1 4.3 5.0 4.4

17.4 20.1 40.8 27.1

Table 3: Labor Migration (% of migrants) Employment oriented* Total Male Female Total 45.5 2.2 13.6 Rural 33.3 1.4 6.6 Urban 51.9 3.5 22.3 Labor force participant Total 70.0 26.0 37.5 Rural 70.1 31.9 38.1 Urban 70.0 15.8 36.9

Employment Oriented* : (a) in search of employment (b) in search of better employment (c) to take up employment/better employment (d) transfer of service/contract (e) proximity to place of work

Table 4: Percentage of labor migrants by streams of migration Employment oriented Total Rural to rural Rural to urban Urban to rural 5.5 24.6 14.5 Male 34.4 56.9 31.3 Female 1.2 3.5 3.7 Labor force participant Total 37.3 39.1 43.2 33.6 Male 68.7 72.3 72.5 66.8 Female 32.6 17.5 24.5 13.8

Urban to urban 19.4 46.1 3.4 Interstate migrants Employment oriented Total Rural to rural Rural to urban Urban to rural Urban to urban 19.3 41.1 18.6 25.9 Male 57.6 72.8 28.1 55.9 Female 2.4 3.9 5.8 3.4

Labor force participant Total 42.3 51.3 53.2 37.2 Male 78.4 83.4 76.0 70.1 Female 26.5 13.6 22.8 12.5

Table 5: Employment oriented migration by educational qualification and duration Illiterate T <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20+ Total 14.9 10.4 8.0 7.3 5.8 4.2 6.4 M 31.6 36.0 52.1 53.0 57.8 47.5 44.9 F 6.7 3.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.8 T 17.1 13.8 11.4 12.6 12.1 12.5 12.8 Primary M 30.2 28.9 29.4 40.2 53.9 49.7 36.5 F 4.3 2.9 1.9 1.7 0.8 0.9 1.7 T 22.1 21.9 18.4 17.5 18.8 21.8 20.1 Secondary M 44.9 47.8 46.1 42.9 46.4 51.5 47.2 F 3.7 3.6 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.6 Graduate & above T M F 37.3 38.5 33.4 35.2 27.3 32.9 34.7 59.6 66.2 60.5 59.0 50.9 52.0 59.0 7.6 9.6 6.5 8.9 4.2 4.5 7.3

Duration

Table 6: Labor force participation of migrants by educational qualification and duration Illiterate T 29.1 32.1 39.1 42.5 44.2 34.8 36.8 M 43.1 51.8 80.0 85.5 88.6 76.2 69.0 F 22.3 26.7 33.5 37.5 40.6 31.8 33.0 T 31.3 26.3 27.3 35.5 39.8 34.1 31.5 Primary M 46.7 41.9 46.0 66.2 91.2 80.2 57.4 F 16.4 15.0 17.3 23.5 25.9 19.7 19.4 Secondary T 37.7 37.1 35.6 36.0 40.0 42.3 38.0 M 70.1 69.6 71.3 69.0 77.1 82.8 73.4 F 11.5 14.2 15.1 15.9 17.7 15.5 15.2 Graduate & above T M F 59.5 85.1 25.5 59.0 87.8 28.9 56.6 86.5 27.1 61.2 86.7 33.2 62.7 87.0 38.8 62.3 82.5 32.5 56.9 30.7 85.9

Duration <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20+ Total

Figure Figure 1: Percentage of labor migrants by duration and educational qualification

Duration and educational qualification 70

60

50

40 percent

30

20

10

0 <1 4-9 5-9 10-14 duration (in years) illiterate eom secondary eom illiterate lfp secondary lfp primary eom graduate+ eom primary lfp graduate+ lfp 15-19 20+ Total