CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The interrelationship between migration and economic development is universally
recognized.
The process, patterns, volume, trends and determinants of migration have
contributed significantly to the other processes of industrialisation, urb anisation, economic
development, cultural diffusion and social integration. (Singh J.P. : 1980) 1 . The neo-classical
model (Lewis: 1954; Fei and Ranis: 1961; Todaro: 1969; Harris and Todaro: 1970) 2 was
developed primarily to explain the patterns of migrat ion in the process of economic
development (Massey et al : 1993) 3 . The study of
migration has also acquired special
significance in the context of commercialisation and modernisation of agriculture (Oberai
and Singh : 1981) 4 . Moreover, migration has notable feed back effects on the place of origin
as the migrants maintain different kinds and degrees of contact (Rao: 1981) 5 .
Thus,
migration as a component of population change has significance well beyond its impact on
the changing population size and composition of
human settlement.
In fact excessive
migration has been one of the main causes of the major economic and social problems in
India like regional imbalances, rapid urbanisation, demand for industrial dispersal, growing
urban unemployment, growth of slums, decline in cropped area and uprising of the “sons of
the soil” movement.
20
In view of the immense importance of migration, it has drawn considerable attention
from different branches of social scientists and policy makers (Muttagi : 1987) 6 . This study
makes an attempt to understand the patterns of migration from a multi -disciplinary
approach, though the main focus of the study is on the economic aspects of rural -to-urban
migration.
Migration : Concept and Types
Migration is generally known as the movement of people from one residence to another
permanent or temporary residence, for a substantial period of time. Different scholars have
understood the term migration in different ways.
Paterson (1958) defines migration as
“movement motivated by the individual willingness to risk the unknown of a new home and
breaking from a familiar social universe for the sake of adventures, achievement of ideals, or
to escape a social system from which he has become alienated” 7 . Chauhan (1966) regards
migration as “change of residence from one geographical area to another for a more than
certain specified period of time (one year or more)” 8 . Lee (1966) defines migration broadly
as ”a permanent or semi-permanent change of residence. No restriction is placed upon the
distance of the move or upon the voluntary and involuntary nature of the act, and no
distinction is made between external and internal migration” 9 . Caplow (1975) observes that
“migration is, strictly speaking, a change of residence and need not neces sarily involve any
21
change of occupation, but it is closely associated with occupational shifts of one kind or
another” 10 . In the words of Donald (1979) “migration is a rationally planned action which is
the result of conscious decision taken after a consi deration or calculation of the advantages
and disadvantage of moving and staying” 11 .
In the Indian Census, the term migration is solely defined by the concept of place of
birth and place of enumeration (Premi: 1989) 12 . Accordingly a person born at a place other
than the village or town of enumeration is considered as migrant. Migration may take the
form of out-migration or in-migration. Out-migration which is also known as emigration
may be either internal or international.
Internal migration based on the place of birth and the place of census enumeration may
roughly be classified into three migration streams :
i)
intradistrict migration – movement of people outside the place of enumeration but
within the same district;
ii) interdistrict migration – movement of the people outside the district of enumeration but
within the same state/union territory; and
22
iii) interstate migration – movement of the people to the states / union territories in India,
but beyond that of enumeration.
Further, based on the rural or urban nature of birth place and the place of enumeration,
internal migration in India as classified above can also be classified into four migration
streams: rural–to-rural, rural-to-urban, urban-to-rural and urban-to-urban.
Thus, a
combination of two types of migration streams give rise to twelve streams (See, Appendix
1.1).
Among the various streams of migration, rural-to-urban migration has emerged as a
prominent field of enquiry. This is because the movement of people from rural -to-urban
areas acts as an important instrument of economic and social changes in both the areas of
origin and destinations.
Todaro (1976) 12 , for instance, notes that over 50 percent urban
growth in most of the developing countries is due to rural -to-urban migration. Some of the
studies carried out in India by scholars like Dayal (1959) 14 ,
Zachariah (1960) 15 ,
Chandrashekar (1964) 16 , Vaidyanathan (1969) 17 , Jain (1981) 18 , Premi (1986) 19 , Laximnarayan
(1986) 20 and others view that rural-to-urban migration and not the natural populatio n
increase is the major source for the unprecedented urban growth in India.
23
A report
published by Quarterly Economic Report of India, (1992) 21 also highlighted that rural-tourban migration in India was responsible for rapid urbanization in the country.
Focusing on the effects of rural-to-urban migration on the urban economy as a whole,
Cherunilam (1984) 22 noted that the influx of migrants in cities and towns resulted in the
rapid growth of slums.
Similarly mushrooming of suburban settlements
migrants has become a significant phenomenon even in small towns.
with rural
In spite of the
precarious living conditions in these suburban settlements and slums and renewed
emphasis on rural development the influx of rural people to the urban areas is continuing.
Against this background the present study of rural -to-urban migration in a specific regional
context may emerge prominent.
Need for the Present Study
The macro studies use census data and the findings of National Sample Surveys for
their analysis.
The pioneering work using macro approach was made by Davis (1951) 23 .
Using 1931 census data he analysed the patterns of internal migration in India. He observed
that the vast majority of the Indian population was immobile. This study was followed by
several individual studies namely, Zachariah (1959; 1960; 1964; 1968 and 1977) 24 , Dayal
(1959) 25 ,
Mathur
(1961) 26 ,
Gosal
(1961) 27 ,
Katti
24
(1963) 28 ,
Gosal
and
Ojha
(1963) 29 ,
Chandrashekar (1964) 30 , Swamy (1965) 31 , Bose (1967) 32 , Bhattacharya (1968) 33, Mitra (1968) 34 ,
Gupta (1969) 35 , Vaidyanathan (1969) 36 , Bohara (1971) 37 , George (1972) 38 , Ray (1973) 39 ,
Malhotra (1974) 40 , Srivastva (1979) 41 ,
Premi (1980; 1984; 1986; 1987 and 1989) 42 , Kamble
(1982) 43 , Dutta (1985) 44 , Singh J.P (1986) 45 ,
Skeldon (1986) 46 , Visaria and Kothari (1987) 47 ,
Muttagi (1987) 48 , Kadi and Sivamurthy (1988) 49 ,
Singh D.P (1990; 1998a; and 1998b) 50 ,
Narayana (1993) 51 , Bandyopadhyay and Chakraborty (1995 and 1999) 52 , Chakrapani and
Mitra
(1995) 53 ,
Gunasekar
(1998) 54 ,
Kohli
and
Kothari
(1998) 55 ,
Narashimhan
and
Harishchandra (1998) 56 , Sandhya (1998) 57 , Singh and Aggarwal (1998) 58 , Srivastava (1998) 59
and others. These macro studies explain aggregate migration flows. The level and patterns
of rural-to-urban migration can be identified w ith such macro level statistical studies.
However these studies have failed to account for the regional and local heterogeneity that
prevails in the spatial economy and its movement patterns. Moreover, macro level studies
also have largely ignored the decision making process of migrating individuals. In addition
they are generally devoid of qualitative analysis.
The deficiencies in the concepts and limitations of the census data relating to migration
are discussed by a number of scholars such as Davis (1 951) 60 , Todaro (1976) 61 , Zachariah
(1977) 62 , Banerjee (1978) 63 , Chakravarty (1978) 64 , Chatterjee and Bose (1978) 65 , Skeldon
(1986) 66 , Narain (1987) 67 , Roy (1991) 68 , Gill (1998) 69 and others. Todaro (1976) for instance,
25
while pointing the limitations of ce nsus data in the studies related to rural -to-urban
migration writes that “…. census generally collect
information on administrative areas
which in many cases include both urban and rural localities.
They are thus more
appropriate for inter-regional rather than for rural-to-urban migration” 70 . Moreover, those
macro-level studies done with census data lack in -depth understanding of the phenomenon
of rural-to-urban migration. Macro-level studies can at best provide certain general insights
about the broad patterns of rural-to-urban migration. Similarly macro-level studies explain
only the broadly specified causes of rural-to-urban migration and do not provide much
information
about their specific dynamics.
Hence to make an in -depth analysis of the
processes at work to explain the rural-to-urban migration phenomenon we need to go in for
micro-level studies.
Further we observed that those who studied the patterns of rural -to-urban migration at
the macro-level did not attempt to link up their findings with those at the micro-level. In
recent years scholars, namely, Massey (1990) 71 and Wilson – Figueroa et al (1991) 72 have
strongly emphasised the need for combining macro and micro levels of analysis
simultaneously for a more complete understanding of rural -to-urban migration. All these
point out the relevance of micro studies in the analysis of the patterns of rural -to-urban
migration.
26
The micro studies use field survey approach to collect the necessary information.
These studies are generally concerned wit h motives of individuals and with measuring and
explaining the propensities to migrate of different individuals or sub -groups of the
population. Some of the micro studies under taken in India are Eames (1954) 73 , Yaswant
(1962) 74 , Patel (1963) 75 , Padki (1964) 76 , Saxena and Bedi (1966) 77 , Zachariah and Rayappa
(1966) 78 , Kulkarni (1968) 79 , Chand (1969) 80 , Narain (1972) 81 , Dasgupta and Laishley (1974) 82 ,
Lakshmaiah (1974) 83 , Caplan (1976) 84 , Connell et al (1976) 85 , Nair (1978) 86 , Srivastva and Ali
(1981) 87 , Oberai and Singh (1983) 88 , Banerjee (1986) 89 , Khan (1986) 90 , Basu et al (1987) 91 , Paul
(1989) 92 , Raju (1989) 93 Shri Prakash and Buragohain (1989) 94 , Oberai et al (1989) 95 , Yadava
(1989) 96 , Bhatia (1992) 97 , Reddy (1992) 98 , Sharan and Dayal (1996) 99 , Sharma (1997) 100 , Kumar
et al (1998) 101 , Lingam (1998) 102 , Mahapatra (1998) 103 , Misra (1998) 104 , Noronha (1998) 105 ,
Pandey (1998) 106 , Reddy (1998) 107 , Samal and Meher (1998) 108 , Santhapparaj (1998) 109 , Shah
(1998) 110 , Sundari and Rukmani (1998) 111 and others. Though important these studies are not
able to provide a comprehensive analysis of the patterns of rural -to-urban migration - a
conclusion agreed by many scholars in this field. For instance, Singh (1980), after reviewing
a large number of Indian studies concludes that ‘--- though several are the studies dealing
with correlates of migration, many more are still required to understand the complexity of
factors which are either causes or consequences of migration” 112 . Similarly Banerjee (1986)
27
also highlights the need for more studies in this regard. As he writes “ ---- despite the large
number of studies our current understanding of the specific determinants and the impact of
migration is not adequate for any national policy analysis” 113 . In this regard the present
study would contribute to the understanding of the patterns of rural -to-urban migration.
Further, Indian micro studies conducted so far are either completely urban based or
completely rural based. A qualitative analysis of the patterns of rural -to-urban migration
can be done on the basis of information gathered from the migrants themselves. However,
urban based studies are unable to deal with issues at place of origin. Hence these studies
may be one-sided.
The rural based studies, on the contra ry have been concerned with
people who do not live in rural areas at the time of study. A study of the native households
and village areas of the migrants without a direct reference to the migrants themselves has
undermined the utility of these studies. Hence rural based studies may also be one-sided.
These one-sided approaches have given rise to a research gap which is rarely bridged.
(Connell et al 1976) 114 .
The deficiencies of one-sided studies can be overcome by
undertaking field studies covering bo th rural and urban areas.
According to Todaro
(1976) 115 and also Gill (1998) 116 a two-ended approach should be a top priority for research
designed to frame and implement realistic migration policies. However there are very few
28
studies which examine rural-to-urban migration from both ends (Gill; 1998) 117 . Viewed in
this respect the present study would emerge as an attempt to fill up this research gap.
Moreover, most of the urban based studies in India are related to the metropolitan and
other big cities like Bangalore, Calcutta, Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai,
and the like.
Little
attention has so far been paid to study the patterns of rural -to-urban migration to the small
towns specially within the district.
Besides there is practically no study, making a
comparative study between intra – district and inter-state rural-to-urban migration from the
same rural areas. The present study also makes an attempt to fill the gap in this area of
research.
Review Of Literature
The literature on rural-to-urban migration may be divided into two parts: (i) those
relating to the theoretical models, and (ii) those highlighting the empirical evidences
29
Theoretical Studies
The pioneering work in the theory of migration was made by Ravenstein (1885;
1888) 118 .
According to his “Laws of Migration”, migrants move from areas of low
opportunity to areas of high opportunity. The choice of destination is regulated by distance
with migrants tending to move to nearby places. He hypothesized that each stream of rural to-urban migration produces a
counterstream of return migration back to rural areas.
Ravenstein further observed that urban residents are less
migratory than rural ones and
that incidence of migration increase with growth in the means of transport and
communications and is positively related to the expansion of trade and industry.
scholars who worked on Ravensteins basic laws have further expanded them
The
through
empirical evidences. However, the importance of the economic motive in the decision to
migrate, the negative influence of distance, and the role of step -migration suggested by him
are some of the basic features which have not been invalidated (Oberai and Singh, 1983) 119 .
Some scholars have also looked on migration in terms of opportunities.
For instance,
Stouffer (1940) 120 , in his model of “Intervening Opportunities” argued that the number of
persons migrating to a given distance are directly proportional to the number of
30
opportunities at the place of destination and indirectly proportional to the number of
intervening opportunities.
In his article “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour”, Lewis
(1954) 121 , developed the first model on rural-to-urban migration. This model was further
extended by Fei and Ranis (1961) 122 .
This model is based on the idea of dual economy
consisting of a rural agricultural sector characterized by under employment and an urban
industrial sector having better employment opportunities.
The model suggests that
migration is an equilibrating mechanism which brings wage equality by transferring people
from the labour surplus and low income rural areas to the labour deficit and high income
urban centres.
However, this model was found to be unsatisfactory for analysing the causes and
consequences of rural-to-urban migration because of various shortcomings. For instance, the
model does not recognize the process of migration as a state of continuous disequilibrium
and fails to explain the large and increasing flows of rural -to-urban migration along with
increasing urban unemployment.
Moreover, the assumption of near-zero marginal
productivity and surplus labour in agriculture has been widely criticized on empirical
grounds.
In addition migration is not solely induced by the presence of low wages and
31
under-employment in the rural areas. Scholars such as Peterson (1955) 123 , Bogue (1959) 124 ,
Traver (1961) 125 , Sahota (1968) 126 , Jobes et al (1992) 127 , Wenk and Hardesty (1993) 128 have
argued that non-economic factors also influence the patterns of rural -to-urban migration.
Sjaastad (1962) 129 , in his “Human Investment Theory”, also known as “Human Capital
Theory” treats the decision to migrate as an investment decision involving an individual’s
expected costs and returns over time. He incorporated both monetary and non -monetary
components of explaining the phenomenon of rural -to-urban migration.
According to
Sjaastad, the probability of migration is directly related to the present value of the expected
income gain and inversely related to the cost of relocation. Though the Human Investment
Theory recognizes the effect of individual characteristics of migrants, it fails to explain why
rural-to-urban migration continues in spite of increasing unemployment in the urban areas.
Lee (1966) 130 , developed a general conceptual framework by formulating a number of
hypotheses.
He divided the forces exerting an influence on migrants perceptions into
“push” and “pull” factors. The “push” factors are “negative” factors tending to force
migrants to leave origin areas, while the “pull” factors ar e “positive” factors attracting
migrants to destination areas in the expectation of improving their lot. These conditions at
the area of origin and destination are governed by personal characteristics “which affect
32
individual thresholds and facilitate or retard migration” 131 . This conceptual framework, as
propounded by Lee, no doubt, has helped in understanding migration selectivity. However,
this framework is too general in character. Hence it is of limited help for policy analysis.
In recent years, most of the empirical research on rural-to-urban migration has been
influenced by the model developed by Todaro (1969) 132 and its later extension by Harris and
Todaro (1970) 133 .
This model is basically an extension of the Human Capital Model of
Sjaastad.
There are essentially four basic propositions derived from Todaro’s migration model :
i)
Rural –urban migration is stimulated primarily by rational economic considerations.
ii) The decision to migrate depends on expected rather than actual urban -rural wage
differentials and the probability of obtaining employment in the urban sector.
iii) The probability of obtaining an urban job is inversely related to the urban
unemployment rate.
iv) High rates of urban unemployment are the results of the serious imbalances of economic
opportunities between urban and rural areas.
33
Todaro considers rural-urban migration as a two-stage process. In the primary stage
the migrant arrives at the unorganized sector, where employment is irregular and
inadequately remunerated. With the passage of time, the migrant is able to obtain an
organized modern sector job and is also adequately paid. This is the second stage. From the
view point of life span income the modern sector earnings during the second stage are
sufficiently high so as to offset the zero or low traditional sector earnings during the first
state. Thus, individuals while deciding to migrate have a longer time horizon in their mind.
Many scholars like Johnson (1971) 134 , Bhagawati and Srinivasan (1974) 135 , Fields
(1975) 136 , and others have introduced a number of modifications in Todaro’s model.
However, the basic hypothesis that rural -urban migration proceeds primarily due to
differences in expected urban and rural real incomes remains widely accepted as a received
theory of migration.
A number of empirical studies have been made to test the main hypotheses of Todaro’s
model. Studies by Belas, Levy and Moses (1967) 137 in Ghana, Sabot (1972) 138 in Tanzania,
Carvajal and Geithman (1974) 139 in Costa Rica have found evidence in support of To daro’s
hypotheses. However studies by Mabogunje (1970) 140 in Nigeria, Rempel (1971) 141 in Kenya,
34
Godfrey (1973) 142 in Ghana, and Greenwood (1971) 143 , Connell et al (1976) 144 , Sundaram
(1986) 145 in India seem to contradict it.
Apart from empirical rejection several other shortcomings are also observed against
Todaro’s model. A major criticism of the model is the assumption that the potential migrants
are homogeneous in skill and attitude, and also that they have complete information for
working out the probability of finding an urban sector job.
neglected the non-economic factors in migration decisions.
Moreover, the model also
Further, the assumption that
wages in the unorganized sector are always lower than wages in the organized sector and
the decision to move is an once-for-all decision, are also not borne out by many empirical
studies.
Mabogunje (1970) 146 by using the framework of General Systems Theory, has offered a
different approach to rural-to-urban migration. Mabogunje views migration as a contin uous
process occurring in most countries all the time though at different levels of complexity.
Mabogunje’s approach considers rural-to-urban migration as a circular, interdependent,
progressively complex and self-modifying system and no longer as a linea r, unidirectional,
“push and pull” cause-effect movement in which the effect of changes in one part can be
traced through the whole of the system. The migration system is influenced by an economic,
35
social, political and technological environment. The exc hange between the environment and
the migration system is open and continuous. Having received the stimulus, the potential
migrant will be influenced by the rural control sub -system like family, local community, in
his decision either to remain in the rural area or to make a move. The urban sub-control
system can help the migrant to adjust to the new environment and eventually to become true
urbanites.
The positive or negative feedbacks to the area of origin influence subsequent
migration.
In recent years the World Bank Approach places rural -to-urban migration in the wider
context of overall development of the economy 147 . This approach is based on the idea that
different sectors including rural and urban areas are interconnected by systems of backward
and forward linkages.
Through such linkages, development in rural areas influence
economic activities in urban areas. Rural produced goods tend to be income inelastic while
urban goods and services are generally income elastic (Mellor: 1976) 148 . Therefore as income
rises, rural customers are expected to spend an increasing proportion of added income on
urban goods and services.
No doubt, added rural income will generate some additional
demands for rural goods, it will have a much greater impact on demand for urban goods and
services.
To meet this added demand, urban production will increase, resulting in
employment generation in urban areas, and will thereby induces rural -to-urban migration.
36
The World Bank Approach further observes that the inter -sector linkages and the
distribution of income gains in rural areas have important implications for the pattern of
rural-to-urban migration.
For instance, development activities which increase incomes of
middle level and relatively well off farmers will have a s tronger positive impact on rural-tourban migration, than activities which concentrate benefits on the poorest rural residents.
Similarly most of urban employment induced by growth of agriculture through backward
and forward linkages will accrue to market towns and regional centres.
Consequently,
backward and forward intersectoral linkages are likely to stimulate migration from rural
areas to market towns and regional centres. Thus, according to the World Bank Approach,
the developmental activities which take place in the economy will have a positive impact on
rural-to-urban migration.
A review of various theories brings home the fact that all the theoretical approaches
and models are partial. They have failed to provide a comprehensive explanation on th e
patterns of rural-to-urban migration. Hence to understand the specific patterns of rural –tourban migration there is a need for further micro -level studies that will provide empirical
foundations for theoretical explanation.
37
Empirical Studies
The
literature
on
empirical
studies
on
rural-to-urban
migration
has
been
comprehensively reviewed by Brigg (1973) 149 , Byerlee (1974) 150 , Carynnyk–Sinclair (1974) 154 ,
Greenwood (1975) 152 , Connell et al (1976) 153 , Nelson (1976) 154 , Todaro (1976) 155 , Findley
(1977) 15 6 , Simmons et al (1977) 157 , Yap (1977) 158 ,
Singh (1980) 159 , Stark (1982) 160 , Parik
(1986) 161 , Williamson (1988) 162 , Yadava (1989) 163 , Rempel (1996) 164 , Sharma (1997) 165 and
others. Various empirical studies have given importance on certain factors determ ining the
movement of people from rural-to-urban areas. Some of these determinants are discussed in
the following section :
Caste
Different micro studies conducted in India have shown that the propensity to migrate
from rural-to-urban areas differs for different castes. The studies by Eames (1954) 166 , Gist
(1955) 167 , Joshi (1957) 168 , Connell et al (1976) 169 , Paul (1989) 170 , Yadava (1989) 171 , Bhatia
(1992) 172 and Bora (1996) 173 reveal the fact that high caste people are more migratory than
those belonging to lower castes. The high propensity of migration among upper caste people
may be attributed to the differences in the level of formal education (Gist; 1955) 174 .
However, studies by Zenkin (1958) 175 , Saxena (1977) 176 , Nagaraj (1997) 177 and Shah (1998) 178
38
observed that both upper and lower castes had greater propensity to migrate. While Khan’s
(1986) 179 study showed that backward castes were numerically dominant, next to them were
higher castes and then follow the scheduled caste. We therefore argue that ca ste is
instrumental in causing differential migration and some castes are more mobile than others.
Age
Studies on migration differentiates have reported that rural -to-urban migrants were
predominantly young adults falling in the age group of 15 to 30 yea rs.
Gist (1955) 180 ,
Bulsara (1965) 181 , Zachariah (1968) 182 , Narain (1972) 183 , Connell et al (1976) 184 , Todaro
(1976) 185 , and Oberai and Singh (1983) 186 have observed that young rural adults were more
migratory than other groups. Some recent studies by Pa ul (1989) 187 , Mehata (1991) 188 and
Shah (1998) 189 also upheld the above generalization. It implies that age component plays an
important role in rural-to-urban migration. The relative youth of rural -to-urban migrants
implies longer expected working life of the migrants and greater number of years over
which they can earn higher urban income.
39
Sex
Rural –to-urban migration in India, unlike in western countries is highly selective of
males (Zacharich 1964) 190 . Studies by Connell et al (1976) 191 Oberai and Singh (1983) 192 Shah
(1998) 193 have provided quantitative evidence to this phenomenon. Connell et al (1976) have
estimated that “the females never represented more than 21 percent of the total migrants
and as percentage of all working women, working mig rant women were even less-7
percent” 194 .
Citing reasons they observed that in the Indian subcontinent the needs of
females were subordinate to the needs of males.
Moreover, females participate less in
education and consequently they lack qualifications f or many jobs.
Premi (1980) 195 ,
analysing the patterns of internal migration in India observes that the composition of female
migrants in the rural-to-urban migration was associated with the distance involved in
migration and the size of the city. Premi maintains that female migration is mostly short
distance migration and larger the city the less likely are women to migrate. While Guglar
and Ferree (1983) 196 observed that, sex-selectivity in city-ward migration and labour force
participation varies according to the position of women as well as by major cultural regions.
We hold the view that the proportion of migrating women will increase as their educational
opportunities expand.
40
Marital Status
Rural-to-urban migration is selective in terms of marital status also.
Zachariah
(1968) 197 , observed that migrants to Greater Bombay were disproportionately drawn from
among the single of both sexes in the state of origin. Studies by Oberai and Singh (1983) 198 ,
Singh (1986) 199 , Paul (1989) 200 , Bhatia (1992) 201 , Bora (1996) 202 and Sekhar (1997) 203 also
showed that the incidence of rural-to-urban migration is higher among unmarried than
among married persons.
Singh’s (1986) study has further shown that among married
migrants, majority had migrated without their spouses.
(1997) 205 also supports this conclusion.
Yadava (1989) 204 and Sekhar
While a few other studies like Sharma (1984) 206 ,
Singh and Yadava (1986) 207 have reported that a greater number of the highly educated
married migrants were accompanied by thei r wives in comparison to less educated.
Education
Education acts as a very strong catalyst in the process of rural -to-urban migration.
Various studies like Zachariah (1968) 208 , Connell et al (1976) 209 , Todaro (1976) 210 , Singh and
Yadava (1981) 211 , Singh (1985) 212 , Paul (1989) 213 and Yadava (1989) 214 have evidenced that
there is a positive correlation between educational attainment and rural -to-urban migration.
Studies have also been undertaken to analyse the relationship between the educational level
41
of migrants and their choice of destination.
Many Indian studies like Kothari (1980) 215 ,
Singh and Yadava (1981) 216 , Kamble (1982) 217 , Singh (1985) 218 , Yadava (1989) 219 and others
have found that the migration of persons with higher education is relatively mo re directed
towards the neighbouring urban centres, while metropolitan
attracting migrants of low educational level.
cities like Mumbai is still
The concentration
of migrants with high
educational level in nearby urban centres may be due to the availabi lity of white collar jobs
reserved for the native people by the respective state governments.
Family Size
It is generally suggested that migrants tend to come from relatively large families.
Studies by Connell et al (1976) 220 , Mehata (1991) 221 , Bhatia (1992) 222 extend support to this
observation. It was generally held that large families have both the need for more earnings
and the capacity to replace missing workers. Moreover, in the large households the chance
that at least one member was encouraged t o migrate was more and once a member of the
large household migrates out, others tend to follow them. Thus, large households are likely
to be affected by chain migration.
42
Land Holdings
The possession of land by a household is very likely to be one of the significant
determinants of the patterns of migration, where most people earn their livelihood from
land.
For instance, Joshi’s (1966) study in Haria village of Gujarat, reported a high out -
migration among the Anavalis, a caste owning 93 percent of the total land in the village 223 .
Connell et al (1976) also reported that majority of migrants in their sample of North Indian
villages come from families other than land less households 224 . However field studies have
shown dissimilar results with regard to the relationship between rural-to-urban migration
and land size. Mehata’s (1991) 225 study has noticed that migration was higher in the case of
households who have smaller size of landholdings.
Studies by Paul (1989) 226 and Bhatia
(1992) 277 reveal that the propensity to migrate was high among medium farm groups. Oberai
and Singh (1983) 228 and Bora (1996) 229 support the hypothesis that propensity to migrate
increases with increase in the size of land holdings, while Saxena (1977) 230 and Yadava
(1989) 231 in their studies have remarked that the people having no or little cultivable land
and those having excessive cultivable land generally tend to migrate. A few studies like
Sharma (1984) 232 , Banerjee (1986) 233 have found higher migration rate among households
with no land.
43
Income Status
Several studies on rural-to-urban migration have indicated a strong correlation
between the level of household income and the pattern of rural -to-urban migration. Studies
by Paul (1989) 234 , Mehata (1991) 235 , Wilson-Figueroa et al (1991) 236 , Bora (1996) 237 , Sharma
(1997) 238 , Chand, Singhal and Modi (1998) 239 and Shah (1998) 240 attribute much of rural-tourban migration to the push of rural poverty. Thus poverty status of the household does not
inhibit rural-to-urban migration. In fact a study by Wenk and Hardesty (1993) 241 indicated
that the movement from rural to an urban area reduces time spent in poverty. However,
Yaswant (1962) 243 and Sovani (1966) 243 have found that propensity to migrate is higher in
middle income groups than in lower and upper groups.
Bhatia’s (1992) 244 study also
indicates similar results. Banerjee and Kanbur (1981) 245 on the contrary have hypothesized
that the propensity to migrate is likely to increase with income up to a point and then
decrease.
Thus, the evidence on the propensity to migrate of different income groups is
mixed.
Contacts
Personal and social contacts play an important role in the process of rural -to-urban
migration.
The presence of relatives, friends, caste members and own villager s in urban
44
areas who often provide some information on the character of job opportunities and the
condition of life in urban areas have been cited as likely determinants of rural -to-urban
migration. Studies by Gist (1955) 246 , Prabhu (1956) 247 , Zachariah (1968) 248 , Rowe (1973) 249 ,
Rao (1974) 250 , Majumdar and Majumdar (1978) 251 , Singh (1978) 252 , Veen (1979) 253 , Banerjee
(1986) 254 , Nagaraj (1997) 255 and Reddy (1998) 256 reveal that rural-to –urban migration is
enhanced on the lines of caste, kinship and friend ship.
The previous migrants work as
motivators by supplying food, shelter and other necessities at the initial stage to the new
migrants (Fields: 1975) 257 . Many a time destination contacts can be an important source of
specific information also. For ins tance, semi-skilled and unskilled workers in industries
like construction, hotels, etc are often recruited through jobbers. These persons visit their
native village and induce relatives and co -villagers to migrate by making firm offers of jobs
with their own employers. Studies by Morries (1965) 258 , Rao (1970) 259 and Johri and Pandey
(1972) 260 provide evidence to this kind of rural-to-urban migration. Thus, destination
contacts have a positive effect on migration to a specific area.
Remittances
Studies on rural-to-urban migration have also focused on the inflow of remittances and
their impact on the village economy.
Connell et al (1976) 261 observed that the amount
remitted ranged from 26 percent to 69 percent of all migrants income.
45
Noble and Dutta
(1977) 262 noted that the inflow of remittances not only sustained rural families but also
promoted the village money economy in place of the traditional barter economy. Saxena
(1977) 263 , found that rural-to-urban migration went a long way towards relieving the
migrant families of their economic distress. Oberai and Singh (1981) 264 have observed that
the correlation coefficient between amount of income earned and proportion of income
remitted is negative. Banerjee’s (1981) 265 study in Delhi indicated that remittances increase
at an increasing rate with the length of urban residence. Paul’s (1989) 266 study observed that
generally those who had migrated alone than those who had migrated with their families
tended to send more to their families back home. Bhatia’ s (1992) 267 study revealed that the
decision of migrants to send remittances was not governed by their income, it rather
depends on the degree of their relationship to and the financial need of the remaining
members of the household. Chaudhuri (1993) 268 concluded that consumption expenditure is
likely to form the most important component of remittance use in rural areas.
He also
observed that the level of in-remittance into the rural areas play a part in their development.
Causes of Rural-to-Urban Migration
Most of the migration studies have emphasized that rural -to-urban migration is
primarily for economic reasons (Sovani: 1966; Todaro: 1976; Singh: 1986; Banerjee : 1986) 269 .
46
Highlighting the role of economic factors in rural -to-urban migration Safa (1975) writes that,
“Migration is normally viewed as an economic phenomena. Though non -economic factors
obviously have some bearing, most studies concur that migrants leave their area of origin
primarily because of lack of economic opportunities in hopes of finding better opportunities
elsewhere” 270 .
Thus, the greater the differences in economic opportunities between rural
and urban areas, the greater will be the rural -to-urban migration. The economic causes of
rural-to-urban migration are usually classified into ‘push’ factors in the rural areas and
‘pull’ factors of urban areas.
Push Factors
Important push factors from rural areas are lower land -man ratio,
intra-rural
inequalities of economic resources, mechanisation of agriculture, low agricultural i ncome,
agricultural unemployment and underemployment. The pressure of population results in
lower land-man ratio and accumulation of surplus labour on land.
A study by Deshmukh
(1956) 271 found that the migration of people from rural -to-urban areas was because of
inadequate land and insufficient resources to generate income for living. Preston (1969) 272
in his study has observed a positive correlation between lower land -man ratio and the
propensity to migrate. Standing and Sukdeo (1977) 273 have found that mechanization of
47
agriculture along with concentration of land in a few hands often leads to the replacement of
labour, thereby resulting in townward movement of labour.
An International Labour
Organisation study noticed the small size of landholdings as a factor driving the cultivator
to abandon farming and migrate to the urban areas 274 . Mukarjee (1981) 275 was of the opinion
that rural-to-urban migration occurred as spatial symptoms of underdevelopment of the
economy. Low agricultural productivity has also been noted as a vital push factor in rural to-urban migration. For instances, the International Labour Organisation study has come to
the conclusion that the main push factor causing the worker to leave agriculture, is the
lower levels of income. In almost all countries agri-incomes are lower than incomes in non
agriculture sector 276 . Connell et al (1976) 277 and Oberai and Singh (1993) 278 have indicated
that the overall rate of rural out migration increases with greater inequality of distribution
of economic resources, mainly, land in the villages. Singh (1978) 279 observed that majority of
the
rural
people
migrated
to
towns
because
of
adverse
agricultural
unemployment or underemployment and overpopulation in the rural areas.
conditions,
These findi ngs
were also supported by Bhatt and Chawla (1972) 280 , Singh and Yadava (1981) 281 and Dhesi
and Gumbar (1982) 282 . Decay of traditional occupation and village industry have been cited
often as push factors leading to rural-to-urban migration by Bhargava (1971) 283 and Bose
48
(1978) 284 . The push factors, are thus, the factors which more or less compel people to leave
the rural areas.
Pull Factors
Pull factors refer to the factors which encourage migration to a particular area. Better
work opportunities, attraction to city life, better civil amenities, higher wages and the
probability of attaining higher standard of living in the cities attract people, especially
young people to certain urban centres. In short, rural people may be lured by the “bright
lights of the city”. Caldwell (1969) 285 in this regard has stated that the vast majority of the
respondents explained rural-urban migration in terms of more money and a better standard
of living in the town, rather than insufferable economic conditions in the v illage. Majumdar
(1977) 286 found that majority of the migrants left their villages due to the improved urban
civic facilities and better economic opportunities.
The studies by Mishra (1956) 287 and
Reddy (1998) 288 have also observed similar findings. Stu dies by Dhikney (1959) 289 , Chauhan
(1966) 290 , Sandhu (1969) 291 ,
Rao (1974) 292 , Gosal and Krishnan (1975) 293 and Grewal and
Sidhu (1979) 294 have observed that majority of the migrants moved to the urban places
because of better livelihood and better econom ic factors such as higher wage rates, income
and regular employment at the place of immigration.
49
A recent review of migration studies by Wenk and Hardesty (1993) 295 indicated that
non economic factors are substantial motivators in the rural -to-urban migration patterns of
the rural poor. Thus rural-to-urban migration is essentially a multi -dimensional problem
which is influenced by several factors.
Objectives and Hypotheses
The basic objective of this study is to contribute to the understanding of the patt erns of
rural-to-urban
migration
and
establishing
relationship
between
migration
and
its
determinants. It is an established fact that exodus of people from rural areas to towns and
cities takes place as a consequence of certain rational economic decisions on the part of the
individuals and not the result of any chance factors.
Rural -to-urban migration, is thus a
selective process which can be understood better by attempting a micro -economic analysis.
The study has the following specific objectives :
(1) To understand the processes and patterns of rural -to-urban migration in Dakshina
Kannada district.
50
(2) To identify the socio-economic characteristics of the rural-to-urban migrants, rural
migrant households and the return migrants in the rural migrant households in this
district.
(3) To find out the determinants of rural-to-urban migration in the region.
(4) To examine the information transmission process in rural -to-urban migration and the job
search strategy adopted by migrants.
(5) To investigate the process of settlement of migrants in the city and their getting
established in the urban occupations.
(6) To study the living conditions of the migrants at destination.
(7) To document the nature of the links between the migrants and the people in their
villages.
(8) To analyse the differences or similarities in the processes and patterns of rural -to-urban
migration between a small intra-district city and a big inter-state city.
(9) To assess the impact of rural-to-urban migration on the migrants and rural migrant
households in particular and village economy in general.
51
The present study proposes to examine the following hypotheses :
i.
Younger people have a greater tendency to migrate than older persons .
ii. Migrants are more likely to be single than married.
iii. There is a positive correlation betwee n educational attainment and rural-to-urban
migration.
iv. Persons with higher education are relatively directed more towards the neighbouring
urban centres.
v.
Urban destination contacts are important in the choice of long distance rural -to-urban
migration.
vi. Migrants are occupationally more mobile and also tend to improve their educational
status.
52
vii. Rural poor migrate largely due to push factors, where as rural rich migrate mainly
due to pull factors.
viii.
Migrants have a greater propensity for saving something out of t heir earnings and
remitting the savings to their families back home.
ix. Rural-to-urban migration causes a change in the cropping patterns at the place of
origin.
x.
Long-distance rural-to-urban migration is non-permanent in nature.
Methodology
The present study uses data both from the secondary and primary sources. Secondary
data such as State and District Gazetteer, District Statistical Reports, National Informatics
Centre’s Statistical Tables, Indian Census Data, published historical material and the
findings of individual researcher’s have been used. The Census Data on migration tables
have been used to analyse the patterns of migration in general and rural -to-urban migration
in particular with reference to India, Karnataka and Dakshina Kannada district. Thi s would
help us to understand the broad patterns of rural -to-urban migration in the district.
53
The primary data used in this study are generated through field surveys. As discussed
elsewhere in the chapter the field studies have been undertaken at both end s covering place
of destination and origin. It is obvious that people from the villages of Dakshina Kannada
district are found in almost all important urban areas within the district, state, as well as
other states in India and also in important cities al l over the world (Lobo : 1999) 296 .
However, considering the practical difficulties in terms of cost, time, identification and
location, this study restricts itself to the study of migrants from the rural areas of Dakshina
Kannada in two cities only. The two cities are Mangalore and Mumbai. Mangalore is the
district headquarters of the district. Geographically and demographically this is a small city
but is regarded as one of the fastest growing urban centres in India.
Mumbai is the
commercial capital of India. It is also the second most populous city in India. The people of
Dakshina Kannada have had a very long history of migration to Mumbai (Karnad : 1994) 297 .
Various reports have also shown that a large number of Dakshina Kannadigas are living in
Mumbai over the years 298 . Hence the sample of migrants selected for this study are migrants
from the rural areas of Dakshina Kannada working and living in the cities of Mangalore and
Mumbai and their households of origin in the villages of Dakshina Kannada .
A generally practiced methodology of data collection is to conduct initial interviews in
the rural areas to identify the migrants followed up by a “tracer” interview of these
54
migrants in urban areas (Todaro 1976) 299 .
Considering our objectives, we first traced the
migrants in both the cities, interviewed them, and collected the necessary data. Further we
visited the place of origin of the migrants and conducted the household survey. This kind of
methodology helped the researcher to identify the factors and patterns which led the
respondents to migrate and also to analyse as to why other members of the same household
stayed back.
We were also able to meet the return migrants present in the respondents
household and collected information on return migrat ion. In addition the author’s visit to
the household of origin enabled us to record the impact of rural -to-urban migration in the
migrant household.
The actual method of data collection was as follows. In the first stage the researcher
identified a few migrants at both places known to him.
From thereon, it was from the
migrants themselves other migrants were traced. To identify migrants the help of Tulu and
Konkani language associations, community associations like Billawara Sangh, Bunts
Association, Canara Catholic Welfare Society and prominent individuals was also taken.
The sample of urban migrants were selected by following non -probability sampling methods
A migrant for the purpose of the study was defined as one who fulfils the following
five characteristics :
55
i. male or unmarried female;
ii. born and lived at least for 15 years in the villages of Dakshina Kannada;
iii. age at arrival in Mangalore or Mumbai being 15 years or more;
iv. came to Mangalore or Mumbai at least in the year 1995 or before; and,
v. came after securing employment or in search of employment.
The main considerations in following such a procedure were
a. Female migration in India is generally associated with marriage hence married females
were excluded
b. The year 1995 ensures that the migrants w ere staying at the place of destination at least
for two or more years, so that seasonal migrants and temporary migrants have been
excluded; and,
c. Cases representing migration for education, follow up, dependent migration were
excluded and only decision making migrants were included.
56
At the second stage, a total of 300 migrants – 150 each at Mangalore and Mumbai- have
been selected. While selecting the representative sample enough care has been exercised to
include migrants from various occupational, edu cational, regional and household status
background. The actual information was collected chiefly through interviews using a
pretested interview schedule by the author himself. The field surveys were carried out from
April 1998 to December 1998 at the urban places. The household survey was undertaken
during April – October 1999. While interviewing the respondents in the urban areas, we
also collected the addresses of the household of origin. This was used by the researcher for
the purpose of undertaking household survey of the respondents.
However of the 300
households the author was able to trace and contact only 265 households.
The rest had
either shifted to other places or were not available at the time of the authors
visit. The
household survey was designed to obtain data on economic, demographic, and migration
details of the household. At the time of household survey the author
return
migrants.
also identified 53
Separate interview schedules were used to gather data on return
migration. This two-way approach has provided a better understanding of the patterns of
rural-to-urban migration and its impact on the migrants household.
57
CHAPTER OUTLINE
The present study has been organised into seven chapters.
The I Chapter, being introductory, explains the need for the present study, points out
the research gaps and presents the review of the existing literature on rural -to-urban
migration. It also points out the objectives, hypotheses and methodology adopted in this
study.
A brief profile of the physical and administrative features, land -utilisation pattern,
cropping pattern, demographic features, level of development and the historical evidences
of rural-to-urban migration in Dakshina Kannada district are presented in Chapter II. This
chapter also presents a brief profile of Mangalore and Mumbai, the two urban destinations
selected for studying the patterns of rural-to-urban migration in the district. An analysis of
the selective characteristics of the immigrants in Mangalore and Mumbai cities based on
census data is also made in this chapter.
The purpose of Chapter III is to analyse the census data on migration in India,
Karnataka state and Dakshina Kannada district. This analysis is helpful in identifying the
broad patterns and processes of rural-to-urban migration at these three levels.
58
Chapter IV deals with the findings of urban field studies.
The determinants of
migration, process of migration, role of information channels, patterns of occupation,
income and savings, duration of stay and living conditions of the migrants are discussed in
this chapter.
An examination of the causes of rural-to-urban migration of the respondents and the
nature of the links between them and the people in their villages is made in Chapter V.
In Chapter VI, the findings of rural field study are presented and analysed.
This
chapter examines, the volume and flow of out -migration in the rural migrant households,
covered in the sample and the impact of rural out -migration on their households.
In
addition it also discusses the reasons for non-migration, and the characteristics of return
migrants.
Chapter VII contains the summary and conclusions of the study.
59
60
Urban-to-Urban
Urban-to-Rural
Urban-to-Urban
Urban-to-Rural
Interdistrict
Rural-to-Urban
Rural –to-Rural
Intradistrict
Rural-to-Urban
Rural –to-Rural
Urban-to-Urban
Urban-to-Rural
Rural-to-Urban
Rural –to-Rural
APPENDIX 1.1
INTERNAL MIGRATION STREAMS IN INDIA
Interstate
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1.
SINGH, J.P. : “Population Mobility in India: Studies and Prospects”, Sociological Bulletin,
Vol. 29. No. 1, March 1980, pp 33-62.
2.
LEWIS, W.A. : “Economic Development with unlimited Supplies of Labour”, The
Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies , Vol. XXII, 1954, pp 139-191;
J.C.H FEI, and GUSTAV RANIS : “A Theory of Economic Development”, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 51. 1961. pp 533-565; J. HARRIS and M.P.
TODARO, “Migration, Unemployment and Development a Two Sector Analysis”,
The American Economic Review, Vol. 66. No. 1 1970, pp 126-142; M.P. TODARO, “A
Model of Labour Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed
Countries”. The American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 1969, pp 138-148.
3.
For a comprehensive explanation s ee, MASSEY, DOUGLAS S., et al. : “Theories of
International Migration : A Review and Appraisal”, Population and Development
Review: Vol. 19 No. 9. September 1993, pp – 431-466.
61
4.
OBERAI, A.S. and MANMOHAN SINGH, H.K. : “Migration and Technological Change
in Agriculture: Results of a Case Study in the Green Revolution Belt of India”,
(Mimeo) World Employment Programme Research Working Paper, 1981, Geneva:
International Labour Organisation.
5.
RAO, M.S.A. : “Some Aspects of Sociology of Migration”, Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 30
No. 1, March 1981, pp. 21-38.
6.
MUTTAGI, P.K. : “Trends and Pattern of Migration in Metropolitan Cities : A Case
Study of Greater Bombay”- in Perspective On Urbanization and Migration: India and
U.S.S.R.,
S. MANZOOR ALAM and FATIMA ALIKHAN (Eds). Delhi, Allied
Publishers Ltd., 1987, pp. 391-411.
7.
PATERSON, W. : “A General Typology of Migration”, Asian Sociological Review, Vol. 23.
1958, pp. 256.
8.
CHAUHAN D.S. : Trends of Urbanization, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1966, pp. 285
9.
LEE, EVERATT S. : “A Theory of Migration” Demography, Vol. 3. No. 1 1966, pp. 47-57.
62
10. CAPLOW, THEODORE : The Sociology of Work, Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota
Press, 1975, pp. 11.
11. DONALD, J.B. : “A Migrants Eye View of the Costs and Benefits of Migration to a
Metropolis”, in Internal Migration: A Comparative Perspective, ALLAN BROWN and
EGON NEWBERGER, (Ed.), New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp. 168.
12. PREMI, M.K. : “Pattern of Internal Migration in India: Some New Dimensions”, in
Population Transition in India Vol. 2; S.N. SINGH et al (Eds.) New Delhi : B.P.
Publishing Corporation, 1989, pp. 277 -292.
13. TODARO, M.P. : Internal Migration in Developing Countries : A Review of Theory, Evidence,
Methodology and Research Priorities , Geneva: International Labour Organisation,
1976, pp. 7.
14. DAYAL, P. : Population Growth and Rural-Urban Migration in India, National
Geographical Journal of India, Vol. 5. No. 4 December 1959, pp 179-183.
15. ZACHARIAH, K.C. : Internal Migration in India 1941-1951, Bombay : Demographic
Training and Research Centre, 1960.
63
16. CHANDRASHEKAR, S. : “Growth of Population in Madras City” Population Review, Vol.
8, No. 1. January 1964, pp. 17-45.
17. VAIDYANATHAN, K.E. : “Components of Urban Growth in India”, Proceedings of the
General Conference of International Union for Scientific Study on Population. No. 4,
London 1969, pp. 2841-2948.
18. JAIN, N.G. : “Rural-Urban Migration and Planning For Development: A Case Study of
Nagpur City”, in Frontiers in Migration Analysis, R.B. MANDAL (Ed.), New Delhi:
Concept Publishing Company, 1981, pp. 365-372.
19. PREMI, M.K. : “Migration to Cities in India”, in Studies in Migration, M.S.A. RAO (Ed);
New Delhi : Manohar Publications, 1986, pp. 39 -84.
20. LAXMINARAYAN K. : “Growth of Metropolitan Cities and Their Migrants: Historical
and Demographic Profile” in Studies in Migration, M.S.A. RAO (Ed), 1986, op. cit.,
pp. 85-162.
21. INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC OPINION : “Critical Challenges of Indian Urbanisation 1991 and
Beyond”, Quarterly Economic Report of India, Vol . XXXV., No. 2, April-June 1992,
P. 15.
64
22. CHERUNILAM, FRANCIS : Urbanisation in Developing Countries, Bombay: Himalaya
Publishing House, 1984.
23. DAVIS KINGSLEY : The Population of India and Pakistan, New York: Russell and Russel,
1951.
24. ZACHARIAH, K.C. : “Migration to Greater Bombay 194 1-1951”, The Indian Journal of
Social Work, Vol. 20., No. 3, December 1959, pp 190-251; Internal Migration in India,
1941-1951, Bombay: Demographic Training and Research Centre, 1960; Historical
Study of Internal Migration in the Indian Sub-Continent, 1901-1931, Bombay : Asia
Publishing House, 1964; “Measurement of Internal Migration from Census Data”,
in Internal Migration: A Comparative Perspective , A.A. BROWN and E. NEW
BERGER (Eds.), 1977, op. cit., pp. 121 -134.
25. DAYAL, P. : 1959, op cit., pp 179-183.
26. MATHUR, PRAKASH C. : Internal Migration in India 1941 to 1951, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1961, Quoted By NAJMA KHAN . P attern of
Rural Out-migration, Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1986.
65
27. GOSAL, G.S. : “Internal Migration in India : A Regional Analysis”, The Indian
Geographical Journal, Vol. 36. No. 3. July-September 1961, pp. 106-121.
28. KATTI, A.P. : “Characteristics of Immigrants in Andhra Pradesh”, International Institute
of Population Studies, Vol. I. No. 22, 1963.
29. GOSAL and OJHA G.S. : “Redistribution of Population in Punjab During 1951 -1961”, in
Pattern of Population Change in India,
ASHISH BOSE (Ed.), Delhi: Allied
Publishers, 1963, pp. 197-129.
30. CHANDRASHEKAR S. : “Growth of Population in Madras City”, Population Review, Vol.
VIII. No. 1. January 1964, pp. 17-45.
31. SWAMY, SUBRAMANIA, V. : ”Some Aspects of Migration in Kerala”, in Aspects of
Migration in Kerala, R.S. KURUP and K.A. GEORGE (Eds.), Trivandrum:
Government Press, 1965.
32. BOSE, ASHISH : “Internal Migration in India, Pakistan and Ceylon”, in Proceedings of the
World Population Conference –1965, Vol. IV.
66
33. BHATTACHARYA, A. : “Migration Pattern of West Bengal”, in Proceedings of 21 st
International Geographical Conference, New Delhi, 1968.
34. MITRA, ASHOK : “Internal Migration and Urbanisation in India”, Indian Demographic
Bulletin, Vol. I. No. I. 1968, pp. 1-9.
35. GUPTA, P. SEN : “Some Characteristics of Internal Migration in India”, in Economic
Regionalisation of India: Problems and Approaches . P. SEN GUPTA and GALIMA V.
SADSYUK (Eds.), New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, 1969, pp. 79 -89.
36. VAIDYANATHAN, K.E. : “Components of Urban Growth in India”, Proceedings of the
General Conference of International Union For Scientific Study On Population. No. 4 ,
London, 1969, pp. 2941-2948.
37. BOHARA, D.M. : “Internal Migration in Rajasthan”, Indian Journal of Geography, Vol. IV,
V and VI, 1969-1971, pp. 47-57.
38. GEORGE, M. : “Pattern of Interstate Migration in Assam and West Bengal with Special
Reference to Rural-Urban Migration Schemes”, Office of Registrar General of
India, New Delhi: October 1972.
67
39. RAY, B.K. : “Migration Pattern in Utter Pradesh”, The Deccan Geographer, Vol. IX No. 1
and 2 December 1973, pp. 45-56.
40. MALHOTRA, G.K. : “Birth Place Migration in India: Census of India, 1971”, Special
Monograph No. 1. New Delhi: Registrar General of India, 1974.
41. SRIVASTVA, S.C. : “Migration in India”, Paper No. 2 of 1979,
New Delhi: Office of the
Registrar General of India., 1979.
42. PREMI, M.K. : “Aspects of Female Migration in India”, Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 15. No. 15, 1980, pp. 714-720; “Internal Migration in India 1961 -1981”, Social
Action, Vol. 34 No.3 1984, pp. 274-285; “Migration to Cities in India:, in Studies in
Migration, M.S.A. RAO (Ed.), New Delhi: Manohar Public ation, 1986; “Patterns
and Processes of Urban-to-Urban and Urban-to-Rural Migration”, in Perspectives
On Urbanisation and Migration: India and U.S.S.R”, S. MANZOOR ALLAN and
FATIMA ALIKHAN (Eds.), 1987, op. cit. ; “Pattern of Internal Migration in India:
Some New Dimensions”, 1989, op. cit.
43. KAMBLE, N. D. : Migration in Indian Metropolis: A Study of Madras Metropolis, New Delhi:
Uppal Publishing House, 1982.
68
44. DUTTA, PRANATI : “Inter-State Migration in India”, Margin, Vol. 18. 1985.
45. SINGH, J.P. : “Patterns of Rural-Urban Migration in India”, New Delhi: Inter-India
Publications, 1986.
46. SKELDON, R. : “On Migration Patterns in India during the 1970’s”, Population and
Development Review, Vol. 12. No. 4, 1986, pp. 859-779.
47. VISARIA, P. and KOTHARI, D. : “Data Base fo r the Study of Migration and Urbanisation
in India: A Critical Analysis”, in MANZOOR S. ALAM and FATIMA ALIKHAN
(Ed.), 1987, op. cit., pp. 203-254.
48. MUTTAGI, P.K. : 1987 op. cit., pp. 391- 411.
49. KADI, A.S. and SIVAMURTHY. M. : “Interstate Migration in Indi a: 1971-1981”, Canadian
Studies in Population Vol. 15. No. 1, 1988, pp 37-50.
50. SINGH. D.P. : Internal Migration in India: A Study with Special Reference to Madhya
Pradesh”, Unpublished Ph. D Thesis; Bombay: University of Bombay,. 1990;
“Internal Migration in India: 1961-1991”, Demography India, Vol. 27, No. 1. 1998,
69
pp. 245-261, “Female Migration in India”, The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. 59.
No.3, July 1998, pp. 728-742.
51. NARAYANA, M.R. : “Patterns of Inter-Regional Migration in India: 1961-1981- A SpatioTemporal Analysis”, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol. 5. No. 4.
October-December 1993, pp. 633-651.
52. BANDYOPADHYAY, S. and CHAKRABORTY, D. : “Inter -District-Migration in West
Bengal 1971-1981, Pattern and Causes: An Exploratory Stud y”, Demography India,
Vol. 24. No. 1. 1995, pp. 133-146; “Migration in the North-Eastern Region of India
During 1901-1991: Size, Trend, Reasons and Impact”, Demography India, Vol. 28
No. 1, 1999, pp. 75-97.
53. CHAKRAPANI, C. and MITRA, ARUP : “Rural -to-Urban Migration: Access To
Employment, Incidence of Poverty and Determinants of Mobility”, The Indian
Journal of Social Work, Vol. LVI, No. 3. July 1995, pp. 376-386.
54. GUNASEKAR, Y. : “Migration Trends in India” The Indian Journal of Labour Economics
(Abstract of Articles On Labour Migration). Vol. 41. No. 4. 1998, pp. 791 -792.
70
55. KOHLI, ANJU and KOTHARI S. : “The Trend and Dimension of Urban Labour Migration
in Western India”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 41. No. 4. 1998, pp.
755-763.
56. NARASIMHAN, R.L. and CHANDRA, H. : “Source of Data on Migration and Recent
Trends”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 41. No. 4. 1998, pp. 633-644.
57. SANDHYA S. : “A Profile of Migrants in Hyderbad Urban Agglomeration”, The Indian
Journal of Labour Economics (Abstracts of Articles on Labour Migrations), Vol. 41.
No. 4. 1998, pp.803-804.
58. SINGH, S.P. and AGGARWAL, R.K. : “Rural-Urban Migration : The Role of Push and
Pull Factors Revisited”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics , Vol. 41. No. 4. 1998,
pp. 653-667.
59. SRIVASTAVA, RAVI : “Migration and the Labour Market in India”, The Indian Journal of
Labour Economics Vol. 41. No. 4. 1998, pp. 583-616.
60. DAVIS, KINGSLEY : 1951, op. cit.
61. TODARO, M.P. : 1976, op. cit.
71
62. ZACHARIAH, K.C. : 1977, op. cit.
63. BANERJEE, BISWAJIT : “Some Methodological Aspects of Analysis of Data on Internal
Migration”, in Population Statistics in India, ASHISH BOSE, D.B. GUPTA and G.
RAJUCHAUDHURI (Eds.), New Delhi,: Vikas Publishing House, 1978, pp. 307 316.
64. CHAKRAVARTY, B. : “The Census and NSS Data on Internal Migration”, in ASHISH
BOSE et al, 1978, op. cit., pp. 317-326.
65. CHATTERJEE, ATREYI and BOSE ASHISH : “Demographic Data On Internal Migration
and Urbanisation from Census and NSS – An Appraisal”, in ASHISH BOSE et. al.
1978, op. cit., pp. 327-349.
66. SKELDON, R. : 1986, op. cit.
67. NARAIN, V. : “Forms of Migration and Measurement in Social Demography”,
International Migration, Vol. 25. No. 2. 1987, pp. 179-193.
68. ROY, B.K. : “On the Question of Migration in India: Challenges and Opportunities”,
Geojournal, Vol. 23. No. 3, 1991, pp. 257-268.
72
69. GILL, SUCHA SINGH : “Migration of Labour in India”, The Indian Journal of Labour
Economics, Vol. 41. No. 4. 1998, pp. 617-674.
70. TODARO, M.P. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 53-54.
71. MASSEY, DOUGLAS S. : “Social Structure, Household Strategies and the Cumulative
Causation of Migration”, Population Index, Vol. 56. No. 1. 1990, pp. 3-25.
72. WILSON–FIGUEROA, MARIA et. al. : “Migration of Hispanic Youth and Poverty Status:
A Logit Analysis”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 56. No. 2. 1991, pp. 189-203.
73. EAMES, EDWIN : “Some Aspects of Urban Migration from a Village in North Central
India”, The Eastern Anthropologist, Vol. 8 No. 1. 1954, pp. 13-26.
74. YASWANT, J.B: “Rural Out-migration : A Case Study of Ramanathapuran Village”,
Agricultural Situation in India. Vol. 17. No. 6. 1962.
75. PATEL, K. : “Rural Labour in Industrial Bombay”, Bombay: Popular Prakashan , 1963.
76. PADKI, M.B. : “Out Migration from a Konkan Village in Bombay”, Artha Vijnan, March ,
1964, pp. 27-37.
73
77. SAXENA, R.P. and BEDI, I.S. : “Rural Out-migration from Four Villages in the Western
Uttar Pradesh”, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. 21. No. 2. February 1966, pp.
881-886.
78. ZACHARIAH, K.C and RAYAPPA, H. : “How Static are Indian Villages”, Journal of the
Institute of Economic Research, Vol. 1. No. 2 July, 1966, pp. 38-46.
79. KULKARNI, S.D. : “Study of Immigration into Malegaon: A Very Rapidly Developing
Town”, Journal of Institute of Economic Research, Vol . 3. No. 2. July 1968, pp. 44-57.
80. CHAND, MAHESH : Employment and Migration in Allahabad City, Calcutta: Oxford and
IBH Publishing Co., 1969.
81. NARAIN, VATSALA : “Rural Out Migration in Southern Maharashtra”, Indian Census
Centenary Seminar Paper No. 8, October 1972.
82. DASGUPTA, B. and LAISHLEY, R. : “Migration from Villages”, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 10. No. 42. October 1974, pp 1052 -1662.
74
83. LAKSHMAIAH, T. : “Migration and Urbanisation among Normal Rural Migrant
Richshaw Pullers–A Case Study”, Interdiscipline, Vol. 2, No. 4. Winter 1974, pp. 8092.
84. CAPLAN, L. : “Class and Urban Migration in South India: Christian Elite in Madras
City”, Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 25. No. 2, September. 1976, pp. 207 -224.
85. CONNELL, JOHN et. al. : Migration from Rural Areas : The Evidence from Village Studies,
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1976.
86. NAIR, K.S. : Ethnicity and Urbanisation–A Case Study of Ethnic Identity of South Indian
Migrants in Poona, Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1978.
87. SRIVASTVA, R.C. and ALI J. : “Unskilled Migrants: Their Socio -Economic Life and
Patterns of Migration”, in Frontiers in Migration Analysis, R.B. MANDAL (Ed.)
1981, op. cit., pp. 265-284.
88. OBERAI, A.S. and SINGH, MANHOHAN H.K. : Causes and Consequences of Internal
Migration–A Study in The Indian Punjab. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983.
75
89. BANERJEE, BISWAJIT : Rural–to–Urban Migration and the Urban Labour Market–A Case
Study of Delhi, New Delhi: Himalaya Publishing House, 1986.
90. KHAN, NAJMA : Pattern of Rural Out Migration, Delhi. : B.R. Publishing Corporation,
1986.
91. BASU, A.M., BASU, K and ROY, R. : “Migrants and the Native Bo nd: An Analysis of
Micro-Level Data from Delhi”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 22. No. 19, 20,
21, 1987, pp. An. 145 - An 153.
92. PAUL, R.R. : Rural–Urban Migration in Punjab, New Delhi: Himalaya Publishing House,
1989.
93. RAJU, B.R.K. : Developmental Migration, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1989.
94. SHRI PRAKASH, C.S. and BURAGOHAIN T. : “Demographic Pressures and Migration –
A Case Study of Meghalaya”, Manpower Journal, Vol. XXV, No. 1 & 2. April,
September 1989.
76
95. OBERAI, A.S., PRASAD, PRADHAN H., and SARDANA, M.G. : Determinants and
Consequences of Internal Migration in India., Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989.
96. YADAVA,
K.N.S.
:
Rural–Urban
Migration
in
India:
Determinants,
Patterns
and
Consequences, Delhi. Independent Publishing Company, 1989.
97. BHATIA, A.S. : Rural Urban Migration.
A Study of Socio -Economic Implications,
New
Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications, 1992.
98. REDDY, A. : “Migration of Female Construction Workers to Hyderbad City (1974 -1990)”,
in A.N. SHARMA and S SINGH (Eds.), Women and Work: Changing Scenario in
India, New Delhi: BR Publishing Group, 1992, pp. 267 -275.
99. SHARAN, RAMESH and DAYAL, H. : “Migration and Occupational Changes of A
Scheduled Caste Community: A Case Study of Ghazis of Ranchi”, The Indian
Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 39. No. 4. 1996, pp. 865-872.
100. SHARMA, ALAKH, N. : People on the Move: Nature and Implications of Migration in a
Backward Economy, New Delhi : Vikas Publishing House, 1997.
77
101. KUMAR, BIPIN, SINGH, B.P., and SINGH, RITA : “Out Migration from Rural Bi har: A
Case Study”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics , Vol. 41, No. 4. 1998, pp. 729735.
102. LINGAM, LAKSHMI : “Migrant Women, Work Participation and Urban Experience”,
The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. 59. No. 3 July 1998, pp. 807-823.
103. MAHAPATRA, MIHIR KUMAR : “Labour Migration from a Backward Region of
Orissa”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics , Vol. 41. No. 4. 1998, pp. 737-744.
104. MISRA, S.N. : Dynamics of Rural-Urban
Migration in India,
New Delhi : Anmol
Publication, 1998.
105. NORONHA, Silvia M. DE MENDONCAE : “Migrant Construction Workers in Goa”, The
Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 41. No. 5. 1998, pp. 765-772.
106. PANDEY, DIVYA : “Migrant Labour, Employment and Gender Dimensions”, The Indian
Journal of Social Work, Vol. 59. No. 3. July 1998, pp. 743-765.
107. REDDY, T. BABI : Rural Urban Migration–An Economic Interpretation,
Reliance Publishing House, 1998.
78
New Delhi.:
108. SAMAL, KISHOR C and MEHER, SHIBALAL : “How Geographical Distance Plays a
Role in Rural-to-Urban Migration and Migrant’s Link with their Natives?”,
Margin, Vol. 30. No. 4, 1998, pp 86-95.
109. SANTHAPPARAJ, A. SOLUCIS : “Internal Migration, Remittance and Determinants of
Remittance: An Empirical Analysis”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol.
41. No. 4. 1998, pp. 645-652.
110. SHAH, FARIDA : Rural-Urban Migration and Economic Development, Jaipur: Print Well
Publishers Distributor, 1998.
111. SUNDARI, S and RUKMANI, M.K. : “Costs and Benefits of Female Labour Migration”,
The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. 59. No. 3. July 1998, pp. 766-790.
112. SINGH, J.P. : 1980, op. cit., pp. 33-62.
113. BANERJEE, BISWAJIT : 1986, op. cit.
114. CONNELL, et. al. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 3
115. TODARO. M.P. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 53-57.
116. GILL, SUCHA SINGH :1998, op. cit., pp. 621 -622.
79
117. Ibid, pp. 621.
118. RAVENSTEIN, E.G. : “The Laws of Migration”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
Vol. 48. No. 2. 1885, pp. 162-227 and “The Laws of Migration”, Journal of Royal
Statistical Society, Vol. 52, No. 2. 1889, pp. 241-301.
119. OBERAI, A.S. and SINGH, MANMOHAN H.K. : 1983, op. cit., pp. 25.
120. STOUFFER, S.A. : “Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating to Migration and
Distance”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 5. No. 6. 1940, pp. 346.
121. LEWIS, W.A. : “Economic Development With Unlimited Supplies of Labour, The
Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies., Vol. 22. May 1954, pp. 139-191.
122. FEI, J.C.H. and GASTAU RANIS : “A Theory of Economic Development”, The American
Economic Review , Vol. 51. September 1961, pp. 533-565.
123. PETERSON, WILLIAM : Planned Migration : The Social Determinants of the DutchCanadian Movement, Berkley: University of California Press, 1955.
80
124. BOGUE, DONALD, K. : “Internal Migration”, in The Study of Population, PHILIP
HAUSER and OTIS DUDLE DUNCAN (Eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1959.
125. TRAVER, JAMES. D. : “Predicting Migration” Social Forces, Vol. 39. 1961, pp. 207-213.
126. SAHOTA, G.S. : “An Economic Analysis of International Migration in Brazil”, Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 76. No. 2. 1968, pp. 218-245.
127. JOBES, PATRICK. C. et. al. : “A Paradigm Shift in Migration Explanation” in
Community, Society and Migration in America,
P.C. JOBES, W. STINNER and J.
WARDWELL (Eds.), Lanham M.D: University Press of America, 1992.
128. WENK, DeeANN and HARDESTY, CONSTANCE : “The Effects of Rural -to-Urban
Migration on the Poverty Status of Youth in the 1980’s”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 59.
No. 1. 1993, pp. 76-92.
129. SJAASTAD, L.A. : “The Costs and Returns of Human Migration”, Journal of Political
Economy , Vol. 7. No. 5, 1962, pp. 80-93.
130. LEE, E.S. : “A Theory of Migration”, Demography, Vol. 3. No. 1 1966, pp. 47-57.
81
131. LEE. E.S. : 1966 op. cit., pp. 51.
132. TODARO, M.P. : “A Model of Labour Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less
Developed Countries”, American Economic Review, Vol. 59 No. 1., 1969, pp. 138148, and Internal Migration in Developing Countries; A Review of Theory, Evidence
Methodology and Research Priorities. Geneva : International Labour Organisation :
1976.
133. HARRIS, J.R and TODARO, M.P. : “Migration Unemployment and Development: A
Two Sector Analysis”, The American Review, Vol. 60. No. 1, 1970, pp. 126-147.
134. JOHNSON, G. : “The Structure of Rural-Urban Migration Models”, East African
Economic Review, June 1971, pp. 21-28.
135. BHAGWATI, J.N. and SRINIVASAN T.N. : “On Re-Analysing the Harris- Todaro
Model: Policy Rankings in the Case of Sector-Specific Sticky Wages,” The American
Economic Review, June 1974, pp. 502-508.
82
136. FIELDS, G. : “Rural-Urban Migration, Urban Unemployment and Underemployment
and Job Search Activity in LDCs”, Journal of Developmental Economics , June. 1975,
pp. 165-187.
137. BELAS, R.E., M.B. LEVY, and L.N. MOSES : “Rationality and Migration in Ghana”, The
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 49, No. 4, 1967, pp. 480-486.
138. SABOT, R.H. : “ Education, Income Distribution and Rates of Urban Migrati on in
Tanzania”, Economic Research Bureau, University of Dar - Es-Salam, 1972 (Mimeo)
139. CARVAJAL, M.J. and D.T. GEITHMAN : “An Economic Analysis of Migration in Costa
Rica”, Economic Development and Cultural Change :, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1974, pp. 105-122.
140. MABOGUNJE, A. : “Migration Policy and Regional Development in Nigeria”, Nigerian
Journal of Economic and Social Studies , Vol. 12. No. 2, 1970, pp. 243-262.
141. REMPEL, H. : “The Rural-To-Urban Migrant in Kenya”, African Urban Notes, No. 1,
1971, pp. 53-72.
83
142. GODFREY, E.M. : “Economic Variables and Rural-Urban Migration : Some Thoughts On
the Todaro Hypotheses” Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 10. No. 1, 1973, pp.
66-78.
143. GREENWOOD, M. : “A Regression Analysis of Migration to Urban Areas of a Less
Developed Country: The Case of India”, Journal of Regional Science, August. 1971,
pp. 253-262.
144. CONNELL , et. al. : 1976, op. cit.
145. SUNDARAM, K. : “Rural–Urban Migration : An Economic Model and the Indian
Evidence”, in Studies in Migration, M.S.A. RAO (Ed.), New Delhi: Manohar
Publications, 1986.
146. MABOGUNJE. A. : “Systems Approach to the Theory of Rural -Urban Migration”,
Geographical Analysis, Vol. 2 No. 1. 1970, pp. 1-18.
147. See, JOHNSTON, B.F. and P. KALBY : Agricultural and Structural Transformation :
Economic Strategies in Late-Developing Countries,
New York: Oxford University
Press, 1975, pp. 299-327; World Bank: “Agricultural Land Settlement : A World
84
Bank Issue Paper”, Washington D.C: 1978a and, “Rural Enterprises and Non -Farm
Employment: World Bank Paper”, Washington D .C : 1978 B.
148. MELLOR, J.W. : The Economics of Growth: A Strategy for India and the Developing World ,
New York: Cornell University Press, 1976.
149. BRIGG. PAMELA : “Some Economic Interpretations of Case Studies of Urban Migration
in Developing Countries,” World Bank Staff Working Paper, No. 151, Washington
D.C., March 1973.
150. BYERLEE, DEREK : “Rural-Urban Migration in Africa: Theory Policy and Research
Implications”, International Migration Review, Vol. 8. No. 4. Winter, 1974, pp. 543566.
151. CARYNNYK-SINCLAIR, N. : “Rural-to-Urban Migration in Developing Countries, 1950 1970: A Survey of Literature”, Geneva: International Labour Organisation., 120,
1974.
152. GREENWOOD, MICHAEL, J. : “Research on Internal Migration in the United States: A
Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 13. No. 2 . 1975, pp. 397-433.
85
153. CONNELL, et. al. : 1976, op. cit.
154. NELSON, JOAN M. : “Sojourners Vs New Urbanites: Causes and Consequences of
Temporary Versus Permanent Cityward Migration in Developing Countries”,
Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 24. No. 4. July 1976, pp. 721-757.
155. TODARO, M.P. : 1976, op. cit.
156. FINDLEY. S. : Planning For Internal Migration : A Review of Issues and Policies in
Developing Countries. Washington D.C.: Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, 1977.
157. SIMMONS, ALAN et. al. : Social Change and Internal Migration: A Review of Research
Findings from Africa, Asia and Latin America, Ottawa: International Development
Research Centre, 1977.
158. YAP. LORENE, Y.L. : “The Attraction of Cities: A Review of the Migration Literature”,
Journal of Development Economics, Vol – 4. No. 3. September 1977, pp. 239-264.
159. SINGH, J.P. : 1980, op. cit, pp. 33-62.
86
160. STARK, ODED : “Research on Rural-to-Urban Migration in LDC’s: The Confusion
Frontier and Why We Should Pause to Rethink A fresh”, World Development, Vol.
10. No. 1. 1982, pp. 63-70.
161. PARIK, B.C. : “Migration Studies in India”, Social Change, Vol. 16, No. 4. 1986.
162. WILLIAMSON, J. G. : “Migration and Urbanisation”, in Handbook of Development
Economics Vol. 1:H CHENERY and T.N. SRINIVASAN (Eds.), Amsterdam: North
Holland, 1988.
163. YADAVA, K.N.S. : 1989, op. cit.
164. REMPEL, HENRY : “Rural–to-Urban Migration and Urban Informal Activities”:
Regional Development Dialogue, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1996, pp. 37-51.
165. SHARMA, ALAK, N. : People On the Move : Nature and Implications of Migration in a
Backward Economy, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House 1997.
166. EAMES, E. : “Some Aspects of Urban Migration from a Village in North Central India”,
The Eastern Anthropologist, Vol. 8 . No. 1. 1954, pp. 13-26.
87
167. GIST, NOEL P. : “Selective Migration in South India”, Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 4. No.
2. 1955, pp. 147-160.
168. JOSHI, V.R. : “Patterns of Rural Mobility”, The Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 12. No. 4. 1957, pp. 32-46.
169. CONNELL, et. al. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 213-214.
170. PAUL R.R. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 174.
171. YADAVA, K.N.R. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 54 -57.
172. BHATIA, AJIT. S. : 1992, op. cit., pp. 80 -81.
173. BORA, R.S. : Himalayan Migration: A Study of the Hill Region of Uttar Pradesh,
New
Delhi: Sage Publication, 1996.
174. GIST. NOEL. R. : 1955, op. cit., pp. 156.
175. ZENKIN, T. : India Changes: New York: Oxford University Press. 1958.
176. SAXENA, D.P. : Rural-Urban Migration in India: Causes and Consequence, Bombay:
Popular Prakashan, 1977, pp. 221.
88
177. NAGARAJ, K. : “Agrarian Structure and Patterns of Mobility: A Case Study of Two
Villages in Dakshina Kannada District”, in Peasant Moorings : Village Ties and
Mobility Rationales in South India. JEAN-LUC RACINE (Ed), New Delhi: Sage
Publications, 1997, pp. 233-271.
178. SHAH, FARIDA : 1998, op. cit., pp. 108.
179. KHAN NAJMA : 1986, op. cit., pp. 92-94.
180. GIST, NOEL P : 1955, op. cit., pp. 811-823.
181. BULSARA, J.F. : Problems of Rapid Urbanisation in India Bombay : Popular Prakashan,
1965.
182. ZACHARIAH, K.C. : 1968, op. cit.
183. NARAIN, VATSALA : “Rural-Urban Migration in Southern Maharastra”, Indian Census
Centenary Seminar on Internal Migration, New Delhi: Office of Registrar General
of India, October 1972.
184. CONNELL et. al. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 39-41.
185. TODARO, M.P. : 1976, op. cit., pp 27.
89
186. OBERAI and SINGH : 1983, op. cit., pp 51-61.
187. PAUL. R.R. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 57-58.
188. MEHATA, G.S. : “Characteristics and Economic Implications of Migration”, Journal of
Rural Development, Vol. 10. No. 6. 1991, pp. 731-744.
189. SHAH, FARIDA : 1998, op. cit., pp. 102-104.
190. ZACHARIAH, K. C. : 1964, op. cit., pp 261.
191. CONNELL et. al : 1976, op. cit., pp. 42-45.
192. OBERAI and SINGH : 1983, op. cit., pp. 52-62.
193. SHAH, FARIDA : 1998, op. cit., pp. 104-105.
194. CONNELL, et. al : 1976, op. cit., pp 42.
195. PREMI, M. K. : 1980 and 1989, op. cit., pp. 289.
90
196. GUGLAR, J. and FERREE, M. M. : “The Participation of Women in the Urban Labour
Force and in Rural-Urban Migration in India:, Demography India. Vol. 12. No. 2.
1983, pp. 23-40.
197. ZACHARIAH, K. C. : 1968, op. cit., pp. 137
198. OBERAI and SINGH : 1983, op. cit., pp. 52-62.
199. SINGH, J. P. : 1986, op. cit., pp. 206.
200. PAUL, R. R. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 67.
201. BHATIA, A. S. : 1992, op. cit., pp. 80-81
202. BORA, R. S. : 1996, op. cit., pp. 121-122.
203. SEKHAR, T. V. : “Migration and Social Change, New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 1997, pp.
77-78.
204. YADAVA, K. N. S. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 55 -57.
205. SEKHAR, T. V. : 1997, op. cit., pp. 117-133.
91
206. SHARMA, L. : A Study of Out-Migration from a Household, Unpublished Ph.D Thesis in
Statistics, Banaras : Banaras Hindu University, 1984.
207. SINGH, S. N. and YADAVA, K. N. S. : “On Some Characteristics of Rural Out
Migration in Eastern Uttar Pradesh”, Society and Culture, Vol. 12. No. 1. 1981a, pp.
33-46.
208. ZACHARIAH, K. C. : 1968, op. cit.
209. CONNELL, et. al. : 1976, op. cit., pp 13.
210. TODARO, M. P. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 14.
211. SINGH, S. N. and K. N. S. YADAVA : “Dimensions of Rural -Urban Migration in India
and Their Impact on Socio-Economic and Demographic Factors”, in Urbanisation
and Regional Development, R. B. MANDAL and G. L. PETERS (Eds.), New Delhi:
Concept Publishing Company, 1981 b, . pp. 393 -411.
212. SINGH, S. R. J. : “A Study of Rural Out-Migration and Its Effect on Fertility”,
Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis in Statistics, Banaras Hindu University, 1985.
92
213. PAUL, R. R. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 61-63.
214. YADAVA, K. N. S. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 58.
215. KOTHARI, D. K. : Pattern of Rural-Urban Migration : A Case Study of Four Villages in
Rajasthan India, Ph. D. Thesis, 1980. Quoted in K. N. S. YADAVA, op. cit., pp. 54.
216. SINGH, S. N. and K. N. S. YADAVA : “Trends in Rural Out-Migration at Household
Level”, Rural Demography, Vol. 8. 1981c, pp. 53-61.
217. KAMBLE, N. D. : Migrants in Indian Metropolis, New Delhi.: Uppal Publishing House,
1982.
218. SINGH, S. R. J. : 1985, op. cit., pp. 61.
219. YADAVA, K. N. S. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 62-63.
220. CONNELL, et. al. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 45 -48.
221. MEHATA, G. S. : 1991, op. cit., pp 735-736.
222. BHATIA, A. S. : 1992, op. cit., pp. 85-86.
93
223. JOSHI, V. H. : Economic Development and Social Change in a South Gujarath Village,
Baroda: M.S. University of Baroda, 1966, pp. 64.
224. CONNELL. et. al. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 64.
225. MEHATA, G. S. : 1991, op. cit., pp. 734
226. PAUL R. R. : 1989, op. cit., pp . 78-81.
227. BHATIA, A. S. : 1982, op. cit., pp. 85.
228. OBERAI. A. S. and H.K. MANMOHAN SINGH : 1983, op. cit.
229. BORA, R. S. : 1996, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
230. SAXENA, D. P. : Rural Urban Migration in India: Causes and Consequence,
Popular Prakashan, 1977, pp.76.
231. YADAVA, K. N. S. : 1989, op. cit., 85-85.
232. SHARMA, L. : 1984, op. cit., pp 22.
233. BANERJEE B. : 1986, op. cit., pp. 28
94
Bombay:
234. PAUL R. R. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 146-149.
235. MEHATA, G. S. : 1991, op. cit., pp. 735.
236. WILSON FIGUEROA et. al. : “Migration of Hispanic Youth and Poverty Status: A Logit
Analysis”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 56 No. 2. Summer 1991, pp. 189-203.
237. BORA, R. S. : 1996. op. cit., pp. 81-84.
238. SHARMA, ALAK, N. : 1997, op. cit.
239. CHAND, KISHAN, K.C. SINGAL and SANJAY MODI : “Socio -Economic Variables and
Process of Migration in Sugar Industry of Punjab”, The Indian Journal of Labour
Economics, Vol. 41, No. 4, 1998, pp. 674-693.
240. SHAH, FARIDA : 1998, op. cit., pp. 81-85.
241. WENK, Dee ANN and CONSTANCE HARDESTY : 1993, op. cit., pp. 87 -89.
242. YESHWANT, T. S. : 1962, op. cit., pp. 655 -663.
243. SOVANI, N. V. : Urbanisation and Urban India, Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1966.
244. BHATIA, A. S. : 1992, op. cit., pp. 86-87.
95
245. BANERJEE. B. and S. M. KANBUR : “On the Specification and Estimation of Macro
Rural-Urban Migration Functions : With an Application to Indian Data”, Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 43. No. 1. 1981, pp.7-29.
246. GIST, N. P. : 1955, op cit., pp. 147-160.
247. PRABHU, P. M. : “A Study of Social Effects of Urbanisation and Industrial Workers
from Rural Areas to City of Bombay” in Sociological Implication of Industrialisation
and Urbanisation, Calcutta: UNESCO. 1956, pp. 46-100.
248. ZACHARIA, K. C. : 1968, op. cit.
249. ROWE. L. W. : “Castes, Kinship and Association in Urban India”, in
Urban
Anthropology, A SOUTHAL (Ed.), New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1973, pp.
211-215.
250. RAO, M. S. A. : “The Migrant to the City”, Yojana, Vol. 18. No. 20 November 1974, pp.
7-13.
251. MAJUMDAR, P. S. and H. MAJUMDAR : Rural Migrants in An Urban Setting,
Delhi.: Hindustan Publishing Corporation, 1978.
96
New
252. SINGH, A. M. : “Woman and Family Coping with Poverty in Busty of Delhi.” Social
Action, Vol. 4. No. 2 . 1978.
253. VEEN, K. W. : “Urbanisation, Migration and Primordial Attachments”, in Winners and
Losers, Styles of Development and Change in Indian Region. Bombay: Popular
Prakashan, 1979, pp. 43-48.
254. BANERJEE, B. : 1986, op. cit., pp. 260.
255. NAGARAJ. K. : 1997, op. cit., pp. 260-261.
256. REDDY, T., BABI : 1998, op. cit., pp. 54 -55.
257. FIELDS,
GARY
S.
:
“Rural-Urban
Migration,
Urban
Unemployment
Underemployment and Job-Search Activity in LDCs”, Journal of
and
Development
Economics, Vol. 2. No. 2. June 1975, pp. 165-187.
258. MORRIS, MORRIS DAVID : The Emergence of An Industrial Labour Force in India: A Study
of Bombay Cotton Mills 1854-1947, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965.
259. RAO, M. S. A. : Urbanisation and Social Change , New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1970.
97
260. JOHRI, C. K. and S. M. PANDEY : Employment Relationship in the Building Industry, New
Delhi: Shri Ram Centre For Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 1972.
261. CONNELL et. al : 1976, op. cit., pp. 90-116.
262. NOBLE, A. G. and A. K. DUTTA : “Modernisation
and Urba nisation : An
Introduction”, in Indian Urbanisation and Planning, New Delhi: Tata Mcgraw Hill,
1977, pp.216.
263. SAXENA, D. P. : 1977, op. cit.
264. OBERAI, A. S. and H. K. MANMOHAN SINGH : 1983, op. cit.
265. BANERJEE, B. : “Rural-Urban Migration and Family Ties; An A nalysis of Family
Consideration in Migration Behaviour in India”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics, Vol. 43, 1981, pp. 321-355.
266. PAUL, R. R. : 1989, op. cit., pp. 159-160.
267. BHATIA. A. S. : 1992, op. cit., pp. 123-127.
98
268. CHAUDHURI, J. RAY : Migration and Remittances: Inter-Urban and Rural-Urban Linkages,
New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1993.
269. See, (i) SOVANI , N. V.: 1966. op. cit., (ii) TODARO, M. P. : 1976. op. cit.; (iii) SINGH,
J. P. 1986, op. cit. (iv) BANERJEE, B. 1986, op. cit.
270. SAFA, HELEN, I. and BRAIN, M., DUTOIT (Eds.) : Migration and Development,
The
Hague: Muton Publishers, 1975, pp. 1.
271. DESHMUKH, I. : “Floating Migration in Delhi”, in Urbanisation in Asia and the Far East,
P. Hauser (Ed.), Calcutta: UNESCO, 1956.
272. PRESTON, D. A. : “Rural Emigration in Auden America”, Human Organisation, Vol. 28.
No. 4. 1969.
273. STANDING, G. and F. SUKDEO. : “Labour Migration and Development in Guyana”,
International Labour Review, November –December 1977, pp. 303-313.
274. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION : “Why Labour Leaves the Land: A
Comparative Study of Movement of Labour out of Agriculture”, Quoted in N.V.
SOVANI, 1966, op. cit.
99
275. MUKARJEE, S. : “Mechanisms of Underdevelopment, Labour Migration and Planning
Strategies in India”, Calcutta: Prajna, 1981, pp. 190.
276. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION : 1966, op. cit.
277. CONNELL et. al. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 19-22.
278. OBERAI. A.S. and H.K. MANMOHAN SINGH : 1983, op. cit., pp. 399 -403.
279. SINGH A.M. : “Rural-Urban Migration Among the Urban Poor in India: Causes and
Consequence”, Social Action, Vol. 25. No. 4. 1978, pp. 326-356.
280. BHATT, M. and V.K. CHAWLA : “The Anatomy of Urban Poverty : The Study of Slums in
Ahmedbad City”, Ahmedbad : Gujarat University, 1972.
281. SINGH. S. N. and K. N. S. YADAVA : 1981, op. cit., pp. 33 -46.
282. DHESI, A. S. and A. K. GUMBAR : “The Migration Process and Migration Age of
Industrial Workers”, Social Change, Vol. 12. No. 1. March 1982, pp. 19-24.
100
283. BHARGAVA, G. : “The Exodus to the Cities”, Social Welfare, Vol. 18. No. 9. December
1971, pp. 26-27.
284. BOSE, A. : “Migration Streams in India”, in India’s Urbanisation 1901-2000, A. BOSE
(Ed.), New Delhi, 1978.
285. CALDWELL, JOHN C. : “The Population of Malaya”, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis in
Demography, The Australian National University Canberra, Quoted in K.N.S.
YADAVA. 1989, op. cit., pp. 88-89.
286. MAJUMDAR, T. K. : “The Urban Poor and Social Change : A Study of Squatter
Settlements in Delhi”, Social Action, Vol. 27 No. 3. 1977, pp. 216-240.
287. MISHRA, S. : “Underemployment and Migration of Agricultural Labo urers in Uttar
Pradesh”, Rural India, Vol. 15. No. 3. March 1956, pp. 89-93.
288. REDDY. T. BABI. : 1998, op. cit., pp. 71 -72.
289. DHIKNEY , B. R. : Hubli City: A Study in Urban Economic Life, Dharwar: Karnataka
University, 1959.
101
290. CHAUHAN, D. S. : Trends of Urbanisation in Agra, Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1966.
291. SANDHU, K.S. : Indians in Malaya, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
292. RAO, M.S.A. : 1974, op. cit., pp. 7-13.
293. GOSAL, G. S. and G. KRISHNAN : “Patterns of Internal Migration in India”, in People
On the Move. IESZEK A. KOSINKI and MANSELL PROTHERO (Ed), London :
Methuen and Company Ltd., 1975.
294. GREWAL, S.S. and M.S. SIDHU : A Study on Migrant Agricultural Labour in Punjab,
(Mimco) Ludhiana: Department of Economics and Sociology, Punjab Agricult ural
University, 1979.
295. WENK, Dee ANN and C. HARDESTY : 1993. op. cit., pp. 79.
296. LOBO, MICHAEL : Mangaloreans World Wide, Mangalore: Camelot Publisher, 1999.
102
297. KARNAD, VISHWANATH. K. : Tuluwara Mumbai Valseya Sanskritika Adhyayana
(Kannada), Mumbai: Department of Kannada, University of Mumbai, 1994, pp. 46 50.
298. UDAYAVANI, A Kannada Daily, Published from Manipal and Mumbai, Vol. 31. No.
184. 3-8- 2000. pp. 1.
299. TODARO, M. P. : 1976, op. cit., pp. 56-57.
103