INTRODUCTION

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 migration pattern is important to understand the changes taking place in the peoples movement within the country. It is most volatile component of population growth and most sensitive to economic, political and cultural factors (Singh, 1998). Proper understanding of
1

the patterns of migration would help in the estimation of future population redistribution. The reliability and dependability of these estimates depend much on the consideration of all the temporal factors of birth, death and internal migration on which population grows in its finest precision (Chakravarty, 1997). During the days when there is a lot of economic and industrial development in various parts of the country and when movement of the population has intensified, emphasis should be given to further understanding and study of the trends and patterns of migration. Several studies (Bose, 1977; Nair and Narain, 1985; Premi, 1990; and Singh, 1998; Zachariah, 1963, 1964) found that volume of interstate migration in India was low but asserted the fact that about one third of Indias population is enumerated outside their place of birth indicating the importance of migration as a major demographic process in India. Moreover, when regional fertility and mortality differentials decline, migration becomes the foremost component influencing the redistribution of population

DEFINITION OF MIGRATION
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 semipermanent or temporary basis (Premi, 1990). Internal migration involves a change of residence within national borders (Dang 2005). Until 1951, district was the migration defining area (MDA), implying that a person was considered a migrant in India only if he or she has changed residence from the district of birth to another district or a state. Since 1961, data on migration have been collected by considering each revenue village or urban settlement as a separate unit. A person is considered as a migrant if birthplace is different from place of enumeration.

In 1971 census, an additional question on place of last residence was introduced to collect migration data. Since then, census provides data on migrants based on place of birth (POB) and place of last residence (POLR). If the place of birth or place of last residence is different from the place of enumeration, a person is defined as a migrant. On the other hand, if the place of birth and place of enumeration is the same, the person is a non-migrant (Bhagat, 2005).

Since 1961 census, the duration of residence has been ascertained to provide data on timing of movement. The duration data are published as less than one year, 1-4 years, and 5-9 years, 10- 19 years and 20 and above years. Migrants of all durations are defined as lifetime migrants because the time of their move is not known. They are those who came to the place of enumeration at any point during their lives and have been living there ever since, whether this happened just a week before the census or a few decades ago (Premi, 1990). Intercensal migrants are the migrants who have migrated within the duration of 0-9 years.

Migration can be measured either as events or transitions. The former are normally associated with population registers, which record individual moves while the latter generally derived from censuses compare place of residence at two points in time. 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. Yet the population census has remained the most important source of migration data.

HISTORY OF MIGRATION
Migration in an Earlier Era of Globalization The most recent era of mass voluntary migration was between 1850 and 1914. Over one million people a year were drawn to the new world by the turn of the 20th century. A World Bank report, International Migration and the Global Economic Order, estimates that 10 percent of the worlds population was migrating in this time period, whereas migration today is about three percent. Growing prosperity, falling transport costs relative to wages, and lower risk all helped to facilitate this era of mass migration. (A situation not unlike that of today.) It was also at this earlier time that states developed a formal and regulated system of passports and visas to control the flow of people across national borders. The effects of the first era of migration can be seen in the composition of many countries in the Western Hemisphere. In the latter part of the 19th century, for example, nearly 15 percent of the U.S. population was foreign born, with the overwhelming majority of these immigrants arriving from Europe. Irish and Italian immigrants came in particularly large numbers, as did Russian and East European Jews, as well as Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Germans. Most current U.S. citizens of European decent are a product of this period of immigration.

At the same time, Chinese and Japanese immigrants came to the West Coast of the United States and Hawaii. Elsewhere in the hemisphere, rapidly developing countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile experienced large influxes of Spanish and Portuguese immigrants facilitated by the past colonial connection between their countries, but also received immigrants from Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, China, and Japan. This wave of immigration resulted in a counter-reaction, however. In the United States, immigrants were blamed for crime, disease, and the persistence of poverty in the urban centers of the Northeast and Midwest. Furthermore, immigrants formed a large and restless population that seemed ripe for social conflict. Groups calling for worldwide socialist revolution found adherents among poor immigrants, and immigrants were also prominent members and leaders of labor unions, at the time viewed as potential sources of foreign, socialist opposition to American capitalism. In 1919 and 1920, then- Attorney General of the U.S. A. Mitchell Palmer instigated numerous roundups of immigrants, labeled Palmers Raids, that led to the deportation of thousands of people, on the basis that they were Communist agitators. At the same time, Asian immigrants were viewed with suspicion and outright racism on the West Coast. In 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Chinese
6

could be prohibited from becoming naturalized American citizens. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act preventing Chinese laborers from coming to the United States for ten years, and later the act was amended to prohibit virtually all Chinese immigration, a situation that lasted until the mid-1900s. Similarly, Japanese immigration was restricted by the 1907 Gentlemans Agreement between the government of Japan and the United States and banned entirely by the Immigration Act of 1924. These developments and the global depression of the 1930s significantly reduced migration to the Western Hemisphere. Even as World War II and the Holocaust were on the horizon, Jews trying to get out of Germany and Austria were refused entry to other countries. At the 1938 Evian Conference in France, delegates from dozens of countries declined to increase quota numbers to admit the Jews fleeing persecution, with only one, the Dominican Republic, offering to take in any refugees Post-World War II Migration As the countries of Europe recovered from World War II, they again became attractive destinations for potential migrants and opened their doors to immigrants to help rebuild their economies. Furthermore, during the post-war period, technological improvements in land and air travel decreased the cost of migration.

Emigration from developing countries to Western countries expanded rapidly as incomes in the developing world rose enough to make emigration feasible, but not enough to make it moot. Most noticeable were immigrants to Germany from Turkey, who were brought into the country as Gastarbeiter or guest workers in the 1950s and 1960s as the countrys post-war economic miracle demanded labor. They were never intended to stay permanently, however, and the German government never granted them citizenship or tried to integrate them into German society, creating social conflict that has lasted until today. Approximately 22 percent of Turkish citizens living in Germany do not possess German nationality despite being born there (Turks in Germany, n.d.). In 2000, legislation was passed, which now grants German-born children of foreigners, German citizenship. According to newspaper Todays Zaman (2012), this legislation though does not allow Turks to hold dual citizenship and, if the Turks become German, they must renounce their Turkish citizenship. Likewise, many workers from former colonies of European powers migrated to Europe in search of work, facilitated by still-existing ties between the colonial home countries and their colonies, such as Indians, Pakistanis, and West Indians

who moved to England, and Vietnamese, Cambodians, Algerians, Tunisians, Moroccans, and other Africans who moved to France. Thus, the previous pattern of migration was reversed. This stirred major social changes in European countries that were not used to multicultural societies. At the same time, immigration to the United States, opened up after the restrictive policies prior to World War II, came not from Europe but primarily from Latin America and Asia. Migration Today Migration patterns today reflect world economic trends. For the past thirty years Chinese workers moved from the inland to the coastal cities in search of jobs and new economic opportunities not found at home. The Economist (2012) called it the largest migration in history. Now, the migrants are leaving the coastal cities and are moving back to inland cities because the government is starting to invest in these inland cities since land and labor is cheaper inland. Foreign companies have invested in China for decades because of its cheap land and labor and the country wants to maintain its competitive advantage. For the last several decades, migrant workers and immigrants travelled from Mexico to the United States. The U.S. built a wall in various spots along the border

to prevent illegal immigration. Law enforcement in many border states passed legislation making it difficult for immigrants to receive services and find work. In early 2012, migratory patterns started changing. In 2011, arrests made at the U.S. southwest border fell to lowest level since 1972. Mexicans are migrating to border towns in Mexico and staying there. Immigrants from other Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru, are now migrating to Argentina instead (Cave, 2012). Numbers of migrants though started rising in 2012 as economic conditions improve. According to the International Organization for Migration website, the total number of migrants has increased over the past ten years from 150 million in 2000 to 214 million in 2010. This means that 3.1 percent of the worlds population is migrants; this percent has remained relatively stable over the past decade. The percent of migrants changes vastly depending on the country of origin. Qatar and United Arab Emirates have a high percent of international migrants living in their county, 87 percent and 70 percent respectively. On the other side, Indonesia and India have a low percent of international migrants, .1 percent and .4 percent respectively. The 2009 Human Development Report notes that 37 percent of the worlds migrants move from developing countries to developed countries. Most migrants,

10

(60 percent) move within countries of the same category of development. Only three percent of migrants moved from developed countries to developing countries. Half of all migrants moved within their own region, while 40 percent moved to a neighboring country.

11

DETERMINANTS OF MIGRATION
The analysis of migration determinants is not limited to movements from Africa to Europe as a one-off move. We distinguish between first departure (from the home country), return (from destination to the homeland) and repeated migration (circulation). We compare the relative weight of economic and non-economic factors in shaping people's decision to migrate. The project looks at whether the same factor influences the likelihood of migration in a different manner when individual and contextual characteristics vary. Some variables are of special interest: education, family size and structure, household's economic resources, prevalence of international migration at the local/community level, size and strength of networks and changing macro-economic and policy conditions in both origin and destination countries. Poverty African migration is commonly perceived as a flow of poor or destitute people. Does out-migration actually affect the poorest households or, on the contrary, is it inequality and relative deprivation that promote international migration to Europe? In relation to the importance of economic needs as the main driving force behind the migration decision, some recent policy initiatives seem to accept the idea that development in the sending areas is a means to curb international migration. Yet
12

this idea is contested in the academic literature. In the particular case of African migration to Europe, are relatively deprived households more likely to engage in international migration than better-off households? Do poverty and/or relative deprivation also affect return migration and circulation?

Education African migration to Europe is often presented by the media as a mostly unskilled migration inflow. However, the better educated also have the most to gain. In fact, this is probably the reason behind an increased perception of "brain drain" in Africa over the past decades. What is the role of education on the migration decision? Are more educated people, and especially those with skills in demand in Europe, more likely to leave their home countries? Are they also more likely to return, or do they rather circulate back and forth? Gender African migration to Europe has long been conceived largely as a "male-affair". However, the number of African women involved in both independent and familyrelated migration is increasing steadily, especially among the more educated. MAFE pays special attention to the gender and family dimensions of international migration between Africa and Europe by analysing how the determinants of

13

migration, return and re-migration vary between men and women, how selectivity works differently depending on the migrant's gender and his/her family status. In addition, in relation to the analysis of migration within the family, MAFE examines the role of social networks in both origin and destination countries in promoting and sustaining both international migration and transnational family strategies. Policy measures African migration has become one of the major policy challenges according to the EU. MAFE studies to what extent public policies in sending and destination countries influence the probability of moving to Europe or returning to Africa; and to what extent they affect circulation patterns. The objective is to analyse the impact of policy measures, directly or indirectly designed to affect migration, at both the national and European levels. We, for instance, look at the effect of integration policies on the probabilities of return migration, and of waves of migrant regularization on the probabilities of departure

14

MIGRANTS' CHARACTERISTICS
A first set of analyses focuses on the migrants' socio-demographic characteristics (educational levels and skills, age, etc.) and on how they change over time, in a context where very little statistical information is available. The analyses considers gender aspects especially. Various studies indicate a feminization of African migration to Europe, notably as a result of family reunification. There is also increasing anecdotal evidence of the independent migration of women. Data on the gender dimension of migration - especially on "autonomous" female migration are lacking however. MAFE helps to give quantitative insights in this matter. Routes of migration and choice of destination A second range of descriptive analyses focuses on migration routes to Europe. Three aspects are analysed: (1) how the travel is organized (who decides and pays for the migration, what modes of transportation are used, whether smugglers or traffickers are involved or not, whether trips are made alone or not, etc.); (2) the itineraries used to reach the EU (means of transport; transit countries; length of the trip...); and (3) the extent of mobility within the EU (especially in relation to seeking asylum or other forms of legal status). These analyses shows to what extent stricter controls at European borders during the last decades have encouraged African migrants to reshape their routes to Europe (new paths, longer trips, etc.).
15

Return Migration and Circulation The analysis of circulation inside the EU sheds light on how migrants exploit the opportunities available in different countries (thanks to specific national policies) for obtaining documents, jobs, etc. Standard migration statistics are not suited to studying migrants' comings and goings. The MAFE surveys, on the contrary, is specifically designed to explore return and circular migration. A chief objective is to document the extent of these types of flows, the duration of the migrants' stays in Europe (and in their home country, in case of circulation), and the migrants' socio-economic characteristics. We expect to find evidence that return migration (from Europe to Africa) has been a significant phenomenon for many years, that it is not necessarily related to policy incentives (programmes encouraging return or expulsion) and that it is strongly correlated with the legal status of migrants. In addition, we expect to find that circular migration is increasing but also that it is concentrated among migrants with specific skills and characteristics - mainly skilled workers, traders, documented migrants. These analyses are of crucial interest for policy makers in a context where temporary migration is believed to be a pathway for improving migration management in Europe

16

TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN INTERNAL MIGRATION

The two main secondary sources of data on population mobility in India are the Census and the National Sample Survey (NSS). These surveys may underestimate some migration flows, such as temporary, seasonal and circulatory migration, both due to empirical and conceptual difficulties. Since such migration and commuting is predominantly employment oriented, the data underestimate the extent of labour mobility. Furthermore, migration data relate to population mobility and not worker mobility, although economic theories of migration are primarily about worker migration. It is not easy to disentangle these, firstly because definitions of migrants used in both surveys (change from birthplace and change in last usual place of residence), are not employment related. Secondly, migration surveys give only the main reason for migration, and that only at the time of migration. Secondary economic reasons could be masked, as in the case of married women, who would cite other reasons for movement. Another problem is that migration data relate to stocks of migrants and not to flows, although different policy concerns relate to stocks (of different ages) and flows. Many of these concerns can be handled only by micro surveys, which have their own problems.

17

Population mobility In one view, population mobility in India is low (Davis, 1951; Kundu and Gupta, 1996). Migration statistics to the early 1990s also suggest a decline in mobility. In the 1991 census, using the change in residence concept, 27.4% of the population is considered to have migrated (that is, 232 million of the total 838 million persons), which shows a considerable decline from 30.6% in 1971 and 31.2% in 1981. This is true for male and female migrants. In the case of males, it declined from 18.1% in 1971 to 14.7% in 1991. In the case of females, it declined from 43.1% in 1971 to 41.6% in 1991. However, recent evidence based on NSS figures for 19921993 and 19992000, and indirectly supported by the census, suggests an increase in migration rates from 24.7% to 26.6% over that period. This evidence suggests the proportion of migrants of both sexes, in both rural and urban areas, increased during the last decade of the 20th century. Migration in India is predominantly short distance, with around 60% of migrants changing their residence within the district of enumeration and over 20% within the state of enumeration while the rest move across the state boundaries. A significant proportion of women migrates over short distances, mainly following marriage. The proportion of male lifetime migrants is low in most poor states except Madhya Pradesh and high in most developed states. For inter-state migration, a similar trend is observed: developed states show high
18

inter-state immigration while poor states, except Madhya Pradesh, show low rates of total and male immigration. Rates of interstate lifetime emigration are complementary to the above trends (Srivastava, 1998). Based on place of last residence and on place of birth, migrants are generally classified into four migration streams. Rural areas are still the main destination for migrants, but urban destinations are more important for male migrants (49% of male migrants moved to urban destinations in 1991, compared to 29.5% female migrants). Between 19921993 and 19992000, NSS data indicate an increase in urban migration, but this is mainly due to urban-urban flows (Srivastava and Bhattacharya, 2002).

Migration for work The primary motive for migration, recorded by the census as well as the NSS, is an important indicator of how mobility is influenced by conditions of the labour market. Of the 27.4% who changed place of residence, as per 1991 census, 8.8% moved for employment reasons and 2.3% had business motives. The proportion moving due to economic motives was higher for males (27.8% moved for employment reasons, and 7.1% for business reasons), compared with females (only 1.8% moved for employment reasons and 0.5% for business reasons). The proportion migrating for economic reasons is greater among long-distance migrants; most male migrants moving between states did so for economic reasons.
19

Again, economic motives are more significant in urban migration streams, especially for males. While the share of inter-state to total migrants was only 11.8% in 1991, such migrants comprised 28% of all economic migrants. Similarly, while 49% of male migrants were in urban areas, 69.2% of such migrants migrated for employment (Srivastava, 1998). A distinct regional variation emerges in the work pattern of migrants. In the northeastern states and some others, migrants are mainly employed in the tertiary and secondary sector of the economy. Elsewhere, the primary sector attracts the migrant most (Annex 4, Table A10). An analysis of the occupational division of igrant workers (other than cultivators and agricultural labourers) shows that among males, 43% are engaged in production related work. In the tertiary sector, significant proportions of male migrants are engaged as sales workers, followed by clerical and related work. All the western states have a significant proportion of male migrants in secondary activity and in the southern and north-eastern states they are mainly engaged in the tertiary sector (Annex 4, Table A11). In the case of female migrant workers, 40% are in production related works and a significant proportion are in technical and professional activity

20

Migration for work in the 1990s Analysis of the recent trends of labour mobility, on the basis of NSS estimates from the 49th (199293) and 55th rounds (199900) have been carried out by Srivastava and Bhattacharya (2002) and a few central conclusions from that analysis are discussed below. This period shows a sharp increase in urban male mobility, with a significantly larger percentage of male migrants reporting economic and employment linked reasons for mobility. For other streams, there has been a decline in the percentage of migrants giving economic reasons for mobility. A comparison of the decadal migrant streams (migrants who had migrated in the decade preceding the period of survey) shows that (a) a greater percentage of the urban migrant workers were from the non-agricultural sector (self-employed or regular employed); (b) a greater percentage of the male migrant workers were selfemployed or in regular employment in 199900; (c) in the case of females, however, a larger percentage of decadal female migrant workers worked in 1999 00 as casual labourers (in the rural areas in agriculture). Comparing activity status before and after migration for all migrants, we find that migrants in general show much higher work participation rates for both urban and rural areas In the urban areas, the NSS 55th
21

round figures show a significant transition towards regular employment and selfemployment among males, with a small decline in the percentage of casual labour. In the rural areas, there is an increase in all three categories including casual labour, but the most significant shift is towards self-employment. In the case of female migrants, however, along with an increase in the percentage of workers to population in all three categories after migration, there is also an increase in casualisation both in rural and urban areas, but quite significantly in the former. These results, along with the decline in short duration migration, which we discuss below, suggest that the 1990s may have provided greater opportunity for labour mobility to those who were better positioned males in urban areas and in the nonagricultural sector. However, these results are still tentative and corroborated with further analysis from other sources. need to be

Profile of migrant workers Migration encompasses enormous economic and social diversity. Migrants are concentrated in different types of work in rural and urban areas. In the rural areas, self-employment is the predominant activity for both male and female migrant workers followed by casual work which, according to the NSS 55th round findings, engaged 33.4% of male migrant workers and 44.2% of female migrant workers in 199900. In urban areas, regular employment engaged 55.6% of the
22

male workers while self-employment and casual work engaged 31.1 and 13.3% of male migrant workers respectively. In the case of females, the highest percentage were self-employed (39.7) followed by regular employment (35.1%) and casual work (25.2%) This naturally implies that there is considerable economic differentiation among migrant households. Further a little under 50% of the urban and rural migrants and more than 50% of male migrants in both sectors are in the top two consumption quintiles. Among other factors, this may reflect the higher work participation rates among migrants and the propensity of the well-off to migrate Micro studies show a bi-modal relationship with respect to wealth/income and land: migrants cluster both at low and high levels (Connell et al, 1976).The NCRL report suggests that labourers and land poor farmers have a high propensity to migrate as seasonal labourers. Data on individual migrants gleaned from micro surveys shows a significant clustering of migrants in the 1640 year age group (Conell et al, 1976). This is even more the case with poorer semi-permanent or temporary labour migrants (Srivastava 1999, and forthcoming). With respect to education, migration rates are high both among the highly educated and the least educated, and among seasonal migrants there is a high preponderance of illiterate people (Connell et al,1976; Rogaly et al, 2001; Haberfeld et al, 1999). In the overall migrant population, differencesacross caste groups are not significant, but
23

ST and SC migrants are more involved in short duration migrants, with migration rates among them being 2% and 1% respectively, compared with an overall rate of 0.7% for all short duration migrants (NSS, 2001). This is also corroborated by field survey data showing that low castes are predominant in short duration migration flows. The nature of migration primarily reflects ousehold subsistence strategies in the face of social, cultural, demographic and other constraints. Males predominate in most labour migration streams. But in a number of other cases, both men and women migrate together for work, especially among lower caste and tribals where constraints on womens participation in non-household economic activities are fewer. The pattern of labour migration (whether males alone, males and females, or females alone) is related to the social structure, the pattern of demand, and the nature of the migration process. In some sectors such as construction, brick kiln and sugarcane cutting, family migration is prevalent as it is more economical for employers. The proportion of women outmigrants (predominantly to agriculture and the construction sector) ranges from 18% to 42% in the case of some tribal areas (Haberfeld et al, 1999; Mosse et al, 1997). Rogaly et al (2001), focusing on four source areas for labour migration to West Bengals rice bowl, find male only migration in two of the source areas they studied whereas migration from the other two areas was both by men and women. The fish processing industry has
24

seen the migration of large numbers of single women (Sarodamoni, 1995). In the domestic maid sector, there is increasing trend of independent migration of females; A study by the Institute of Social Sciences (1991) indicates that 20% of total women migrants to Delhi are employed as domestic maids. There are also important regional differences in the pattern of female labou mobility between the northern and southern states (Singh, 1984). Among inter-state economic migrants, the share of the northern states (Bihar, UP) is very large in male migration, but the southern states have a comparatively larger share in female economic migrants (Srivastava, 1998). On the whole, however, females move smaller distances for work compared to males.

25

CAUSES OF MIGRATION
Given the diversity in the nature of migration in India, the causes are also bound to vary. Migration is influenced both by the pattern of development (NCRL, 1991), and the social structure (Mosse et al, 2002). The National Commission on Rural Labour, focusing on seasonal migration, concluded that uneven development was the main cause of seasonal migration. Along with inter regional disparity, disparity between different socioeconomic classes and the development policy adopted since independence has accelerated the process of seasonal migration. In tribal regions, intrusion of outsiders, the pattern of settlement, displacement and deforestation, also have played a significant role. Most migration literature makes a distinction between pull and push factors, which, however, do not operate in isolation of one another. Mobility occurs when workers in source areas lack suitable options for employment/livelihood, and there is some expectation of improvement in circumstances through migration. The improvement sought may be better employment or higher wages/incomes, but also maximization of family employment or smoothing of

employment/income/consumption over the year At one end of the migration spectrum, workers could be locked into a debt-migration cycle, where earnings from migration are used to repay debts incurred at home or in the destination areas, thereby cementing the migration cycle. At the other end, migration is largely
26

voluntary, although shaped by their limited choices. The NCRL has recognised the existence of this continuum for poor migrants by distinguishing between rural labour migration for survival and for subsistence. The landless poor, who mostly belong to lower caste, indigenous communities, from economically backward regions, migrate for survival and constitute a significant proportion of seasonal labour flow (Study Group on Migrant Labour, 1990). The growth of intensive agriculture and commercialisation of agriculture since the late 1960s has led to peak periods of lab our demand, often also coinciding with a decline in local labour deployment. In the case of labour flows to the riceproducing belt of West Bengal, wage differentials between the source and destination have been considered as the main reason for migration. Moreover, absence of non-farm employment, low agricultural production has resulted in a growth of seasonal migration (Rogaly et al, 2001). Migration decisions are influenced by both individual and household characteristics as well as the social matrix, which is best captured in socialanthropological studies. Factors such as age, education level, wealth, land owned, productivity and job opportunities influence the participation of individuals and households in migration, but so do social attitudes and supporting social networks (Haberfeld et al, 1999; Rogaly et al, 2001; Mosse et al, 2002). Where migration is essentially involuntary, it makes little sense to use voluntaristic models to explain the phenomenon. In Dhule region (Maharashtra) sugarcane cultivation leads to
27

high demand for labour, but landowners recruit labourers from other districts for harvesting as they can have effective control over the labour. Local labourers are thus forced to migrate with their households to South Gujarat (Teerink 1995). In Kerala, trawler-fishing has depleted marine resources. With unemployment in other industries like cashew and rubber, this has led tolarge scale outmigration of girls (Sardamoni, 1995).

28

INTERNALS MIGRATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN INDIA Introduction Internal migration is now recognized as an important factor in influencing social and economic development, especially in developing countries. According to census 2001, the total population of India is 1028 million consisting of 532 million males and 496 million females. India is geographically divided into 28 states and 7 Union Territories. There is a tremendous variation in the aggregate population size across the state. It varies from 0.54 million in Sikkim to 166.2 million in Uttar Pradesh. 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 figure indicates an increase of around 37 percent from census 1991 which recorded 226 million migrants. Objectives This paper is aimed to address mainly the following aspects of spatial mobility within India during the last intercensal decade of 1991-2001. 1. Reasons for migration 2. In-migration, out-migration and net migration levels of all states. 3. State to state migration flows. 4. Some insights on the determinants of internal migration in India. Data Source
29

This paper uses data from census 2001, which was released recently. Census in India collects information on migration based on spatial and temporal aspects. In India, the place of birth and place of last residence of a person provide information on the spatial aspects of movement, while duration of residence provides data on the temporal aspects of migration. The data covers spatial movement of persons within a state or between the states based on crossing geographical / administrative boundaries. Census, however, does not provide economic characteristics of the states. For the economic variables, the paper uses data of various sources, including publications of the Reserve Bank of India, Central Statistical Organization and Planning Commission, India

30

INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA

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 figure indicates an increase of around 37 percent from census 1991 which recorded 226 million migrants. Out of the total migrants 91 million are males and the rest 218 are females. Thus migrants constitute around 30 percent of the total population, male and female migrants constituting 18 percent and 45 percent of their population respectively. Of the total migrants, 87 percent were migrants within the state of enumeration while 13 percent were interstate migrants. Among the male migrants, 79 percent moved within the state of enumeration while 21 percent moved between states. Among females, 90 percent were intrastate migrants and 10 percent were interstate migrants. In all censuses, rural to rural migration stream has been the most important. Females constitute a significantly higher proportion of rural ward migrants mainly on account of marriage. As regards long distance (inter-state) movement in India, a clear sex differential is found from census 2001. Among the male interstate migrants, rural to urban stream emerged as the most prominent accounting for 47 percent. On the other hand, rural to rural has remained the major pattern of female movement, with 36 percent of them migrating from rural to rural areas.
31

Inter state migration flows 1991-2001 Although out-migration and in-migration are enough to measure the amount of net migration, the direction to/from which the migrants moved can be used to explain the structure and pattern of internal migration in a country. Flow matrices are not readily available from the census publications. However a directional flow matrix (28 * 28) between the states can be developed from census data. From the largest three or four magnitudes of out-migration proportions of each state, it is clear that majority of the migrants have moved to neighboring states only. However there are exceptions for this. For Uttar Pradesh, which constitutes 41 percent of all our migrants, migration to Maharashtra accounts for 32 percent even though Maharashtra is not a border state. Likewise, out migrants from Orissa preferred Gujarat and Maharashtra as the destination even when these states are not border states. Out-migration to these states made up to 34 percent of total outmigrants from Orissa.

32

A close look at the pattern of each states out-migration is as follows. 56 percent of out-migrants from Uttar Pradesh have gone to Maharashtra, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. In the case of Bihar, nearly 50 percent out-migrants have moved to Jharkhand, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Out-migrants from these two states made up to 70 percent of total out-migrants. More than one-third of Tamil Nadu migrants moved to Karnataka. The rest of the out-migrants have chosen mainly Kerala, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. More than three-fourth of out-migrants from Andhra Pradesh have moved to the border states namely, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. For the out-migrants from Rajasthan, destinations are Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Turning to Kerala, about 48 percent have moved to the neighboring states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. However, a slightly more than one-fourth of the out-migrants from Kerala have moved to Maharashtra, which is not a bordering state. Overall it is observed that majority of the out-migrants have moved to the bordering states. Nevertheless, it is observed that migration to non bordering states has also been significant. Here, one has to remember the enormous variations in the geographical sizes of Indian states. With the distance covered by an interdistrict migrant in state like Rajasthan, a migrant in smaller states can reach another state, thus qualifying as interstate migration.

33

From the flow matrix, Maharashtra emerges the most favored destination for migration. Half of the entire interstate migrants have moved to Maharashtra. Gujarat and Haryana are the other preferred destinations with nearly 30 percent of the migrants moving to these states. The three states, thus, attracted 80 percent of all interstate migrants during the intercensal period 1991-2001.

34

CONCLUSION
Short distance migration, largely that of women, has been the predominant migration pattern in India. The traditional village exogamy could be the reason for this type of large migration among females. Rural to rural migration has been another important migration flow for both males and females. However, the proportion of rural to rural migrations has declined steadily, while the proportions of other streams have increased over the period. In the same manner, the proportion of short distance migrants has decreased while the proportions of medium and long distance migrants have increased. Long distance movements are more urban oriented than short distance movements. There has been a significant increase in migration to urban areas both among males and females during 19912001. The urban to urban movements are also significantly increasing. Going by this trend, long distance rural to urban and urban to urban streams are likely to emerge as the dominant migration streams in future. The reasons of migration data reveals that apart from employment among males and marriage among females, moved with household emerged as another important factor for migration among males as well as females. It is also evident that urban to rural streams show an increased migration on account of employment or work as a reason of migration. As such, twothird of urban to rural interstate male migrants have moved owing to employment or work.
35

BIBLIOGRAPHY www.treasury.govt. www.globalization101.org www.treasury.govt www.community.eldis.org ww.google.com

36