See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289205277

Temporary and seasonal migration: Regional pattern, characteristics and

associated factors

Article  in  Economic and political weekly · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

81 783

2 authors:

Kunal Keshri R. B. Bhagat

The Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute International Institute for Population Sciences
20 PUBLICATIONS   248 CITATIONS    160 PUBLICATIONS   1,100 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Acess to Household Amenities and Assets in India: A Census Based Study View project

Gender and migration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by R. B. Bhagat on 30 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
Temporary and Seasonal Migration: Regional
Pattern, Characteristics and Associated Factors
Kunal Keshri, R B Bhagat
The regional pattern of temporary and seasonal labour
migration in India assumes sharp focus when seen in the
light of data from the 64th round of the National Sample
Survey. The phenomenon is more prevalent in rural
areas of the country’s northern and eastern states. This
paper also examines the association between temporary
migration and its determining factors, particularly
economic status, landholding and educational levels. It
observes that there is a significant negative association
between economic and educational attainment and
temporary migration, both in rural and urban areas. In
general, socio-economically deprived groups such as
adivasis and those from the lower castes have a greater
propensity to migrate seasonally, which also reflects its
distress-driven nature.
An earlier version of the paper was presented at an “International
Conference on Population Dynamism of Asia: Issues and Challenges
Ahead” during 11-13 July 2011 at the Department of Geography,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The authors are thankful
to the participants for their feedback and suggestions, and they would
like to acknowledge Rajesh Kumar Chauhan and Gopal Agrawal for their
help in extraction of NSS data and Sanjay Mohanty and Kirti Gaur for
their useful comments towards the improvement of the manuscript.
Kunal Keshri (kunalkeshri.lrd@gmail.com) and R B Bhagat (rbbhagat@
iips.net) are with the International Institute for Population Sciences,
Mumbai.
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4
1  Introduction
T
emporary migration, often used interchangeably with
circular, seasonal, short-term and spontaneous migration,
has been a subject of much discourse. According to Zelinsky
(1971), all these movements, usually short-term, repetitive or
cyclic, having the common motive of a temporary change of
­residence, are circular in nature. Circular migrants follow a
­circular path and maintain continuous but temporary absences
from their place of origin for more than one day (Hugo 1982).
Temporary or circular migration is a move made for a short
­period of time with the intention of returning to the place of
usual residence. An important group of temporary migrants
consists of seasonal migrants, who combine activity at several
places according to seasonal labour requirements (Keshri and
Bhagat 2010).
Prevailing regional inequalities and uneven development in
many Asian countries impel temporary internal migration from
agriculturally backward and poor rural areas. Temporary migra-
tion has increased substantially in the last two decades in south,
south-east and east Asia (Brauw 2007; Deshingkar and Akter
2009; Deshingkar and Grimm 2005; Ha et al 2009; Lam et al
2007). Seasonal migration has long been a source of income for
rural households unable to support themselves through agricul-
ture. Households diversify their economic activities outside the
traditional agricultural sphere by sending out members to work
in urban areas in the lean period (Pham and Hill 2008). Accord-
ing to the school of New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM),
temporary migration is considered a risk diversification strategy
(Prothero and Chapman 1985; Stark and Bloom 1985; Stark and
Levhari 1982).
It is evident from the extant literature that temporary migra-
tion is one of the most significant livelihood strategies adopted by
the poorest sections in rural India, predominantly in the form of
seasonal mobility of labour (Breman 1978, 1996; Deshingkar and
Farrington 2009; Deshingkar and Start 2003; Haberfeld et al 1999;
Mosse et al 2005; Rao and Rana 1997; Rogaly 1998; Rogaly et al
2001; Srivastava and Sasikumar 2003). People also move from
rural areas to nearby or distant cities to find jobs in construction
or the unorganised informal sector (Breman 1994; Deshingkar
and Farrington 2009; Haberfeld et al 1999; Vijay 2005). Mukherji
(2006) has termed this distress migration, which, according to
him, paves the way for urban decay by causing urban poverty,
unemployment and a shortage of housing. Breman (1994), on
the other hand, sees seasonal labour migration in western India
as an important survival option for landless labourers. Landless
81
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
agricultural labourers in Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, West
Bengal and Jharkhand, who are trapped in debt bondage and be-
long to the lower social strata (scheduled tribes and castes or STs
and SCs), migrate seasonally within or outside their states (Bre-
man 1994; Deshingkar and Farrington 2009; Haberfeld et al
1999; Jayaraman 1979; Rogaly 1998; Rogaly et al 2001; Vijay
2005). For instance, the monsoon frequently fails in Panchma-
hals district of Gujarat and seasonal migration of the tribal popu-
lation to nearby rural and urban areas is common (Jayaraman
1979). Similar circumstances prompt temporary migration
among tribal women in Jharkhand and West Bengal as well (Dayal
and Karan 2003; Rogaly et al 2001). Though such migration can be
taken as a sign of dynamism, it has more to do with increasing
inequalities, agrarian instability and inadequate livelihood gen-
eration in many parts of rural and urban India (Chandrasekhar
and Ghosh 2007; Keshri and Bhagat 2010).
There are several demographic and socio-economic factors
such as age, sex, educational attainment, social group or caste,
religion, poverty and size of landholding that affect temporary
migration (Brauw 2007; Deshingkar and Grimm 2005; Deshing-
kar 2006; Ha et al 2009; Lam et al 2007; Pham and Hill 2008).
Yang and Guo (1999) have found that in rural areas, the decision
of men to migrate is mainly moulded by community-level factors,
while among women, temporary labour migration is predomi-
nantly determined by individual characteristics. Among the broad
group of the underclass or the socio-economically deprived,
which includes the poorest of the poor, the landless, illiterates or
those with a very low level of education (say, primary school),
the SC/STs and Muslims, temporary migration is very high
(Bird and Deshingkar 2009; Connell et al 1976; Dayal and Karan
2003; Deshingkar 2006; Hugo 1985; Mosse et al 2005; Vanwey
2003). Poverty is supposed to be a key push factor in temporary
migration. Skeldon (2002) states that under certain conditions,
poverty may be the root cause of migration in some parts of
the world, whereas in other parts, under different conditions,
the poor may be among the last to move. Brauw (2007) finds that
households having low annual expenditures are more prone to
migrate than others.
Some studies using data from the National Sample Survey
(NSS) and Census of India have established that poor people are
less mobile as far as permanent or semi-permanent migration is
concerned (Bhagat 2010; Singh 2009), while Kundu and Sarangi
(2007) find there is no association between poverty and seasonal
migration across the urban centres. Recent work by Keshri and
Bhagat (2010), which utilises data from the 55th round of the NSS,
reveals that seasonal migration is very prevalent among those
belonging to the lowest expenditure quintiles, rural areas and STs.
States having a higher level of inequality show higher temporary
migration rates. However, the data has some limitations because
the sample of temporary migrants is small and information is
lacking on their destinations and occupations.
Despite large-scale temporary migration in absolute numbers,
the phenomenon has not been adequately studied at the macro
level in India. This has possibly been due to the unavailability of
national-level data or the very limited information collected by
national surveys (as in the 55th round of the NSS). The census,
82
which is the other important source of migration data, is mainly
concerned with current and permanent migration and does
not attempt to capture seasonal or short-term flows of labour
(Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2007; Keshri and Bhagat 2010).
There is thus a dearth of studies that provide a general picture of
temporary migration at the national and state levels, which also
examine its determining factors.
Against this backdrop, the recently available data from the
64th round of the NSS (2007-08) provides a great opportunity to
study temporary migration in India. With a comparatively large
sample size of temporary migrants, this data allows us to analyse
the phenomenon at the state level. Moreover, there is informa-
tion on the destinations of temporary migrants, which makes
studying streams of migration possible. The quality of the data
has also improved compared to the previous round.1 Therefore
this study aims to explore the pattern and state-wise intensity of
temporary migration and to examine its association with poverty,
landholding and education after controlling for other socio-
demographic factors. As temporary migration in India is strongly
influenced by seasons, the terms “temporary” and “seasonal” are
used interchangeably. In this study, a temporary migrant is defined
as a household member who has stayed away from his or her
village or town for one month or more but less than six months in
the last 365 days for employment or in search of employment.
2  Data
The present study utilises unit level data from the 64th round of
the NSS, which is a large-scale, nationally representative, multi-
round survey (NSSO 2010). In this round, information on various
facets of migration was collected through a schedule on “Employ-
ment and Unemployment and Migration Particulars” (Schedule
10.2). Two blocks were canvassed for the particulars and the
­survey was conducted in all states and union territories from
1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 (the reference period of the survey).
For Schedule 10.2 at the all-India level, 12,688 first stage units
(7,984 villages and 4,704 urban blocks) were covered. In the central
sample, the survey covered a sample of 1,25,578 households
(79,091 in rural areas and 46,487 in urban areas) and a sample
of 5,72,254 persons (3,74,294 in rural areas and 1,97,960 in
urban areas).
In this round of the NSS, voluminous data on short-duration
movements or temporary migration was collected. Information
about temporary migrants was collected by asking heads of
households whether any member had stayed away from the
village or town for a period of 30 days to six months during the
last 365 days in search of employment or for employment. Apart
from this, information on the number of spells (staying away
from a village or town for 15 days or more was termed a spell),
destination stayed at during the longest spell (such as, the same
district, the same state but another district, another state, another
country, and so on) and if worked, the industry worked in were
collected. In the previous migration-related version (55th round,
1999-2000) of this survey, an attempt was made to identify tem-
porary migrants by considering people who had stayed away
from their villages or towns for 60 days or more for employment
or in search of employment (NSSO 2001). But in the 64th round of
january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly

the survey the minimum number of days was lowered to 30 days
to capture short-term movements more effectively.
The usual place of residence was defined in the NSS as a place
(village or town) where a person has stayed continuously for six
months or more. If a household member’s last usual place of resi-
dence, anytime in the past, was different from the place of enu-
meration, he or she was considered a migrant. The NSS used a
stratified multistage sampling design and appropriate multipliers
and weights have been used to generate national and state-level
estimates. Details of the multipliers and sampling weights used
are in the NSS report pertaining to migration (NSSO 2010).
3  Analytical Strategy and Cataloguing of Variables
The rate of temporary migration was calculated to study the pat-
tern and intensity of migration. The temporary migration rate for
a category of persons or a region (say, district or state) for a speci-
fied period of time was estimated by the number of migrants of
that category per 1,000 persons of that category in the region. It
was calculated using the following formula:
( )
Total number of migrants in a
particular category
Temporary migration rate = × 1,000
Total number of persons in
that category
To study the regional pattern of temporary migration, state-
wise estimates were generated. The sample was restricted to the
working-age population (15 to 65 years) for all bi-variate and
multivariate analyses since temporary migration is mainly for
employment (Keshri and Bhagat 2010; Yang and Guo 1999).2
However, state-wise estimates were generated for the working-
age population as well as for all ages. Using the information on
destination during the longest spell, streams of migration were
identified. The variable for monthly per capita consumer expend-
iture quintiles (MPCE quintiles) was obtained by dividing the total
household expenditure by the household size and then distribut-
ing households into five equal percentile groups. The quintiles
were defined as lowest, lower, medium, higher and highest.
Binary logistic regression models were fitted to assess the ad-
justed effects of socio-economic characteristics on the likelihood
of a person being a seasonal migrant.3 The outcome variable of
seasonal migration was coded in a binary form, that is, “1” if a
person was a temporary migrant and “0” if not. In the absence of
income-related data in Indian sample surveys, the household
consumer expenditure data of the NSS provides quite a close view
of the economic conditions of households. Therefore, MPCE quin-
tiles were taken as a proxy of the economic condition of house-
holds, as many recent studies have done (Banerjee and Raju 2009;
Keshri and Bhagat 2010; Kundu and Sarangi 2007). This was
categorised into low (reference), medium and high for logistic
regression analysis.
Connell et al (1976) argue that landholding is the primary
economic force that drives temporary migration in rural India. It
is established that temporary migration is the main source of
income for rural households who are unable to support themselves
through agriculture in their home communities, particularly
those that have small landholdings or are landless (Hugo 1985;
Vanwey 2003). Variable landholding was included in the models
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
with less than 1 hectare as the reference category. Educational
attainment is the other important indicator of socio-economic
development that has been found to be associated with temporary
migration (Yang 1992). It was classified into four broad categories –
below primary (reference), middle level completed, and second-
ary or higher educated (graduate and above).
In India, there is economic stratification of the population in
accordance with various social groups and castes and this is re-
lated to migration, particularly in rural areas, as many earlier
studies have found (Gnanou 2008; Haberfeld et al 1999; Keshri
and Bhagat 2010; Mosse et al 2005; Vijay 2005). For a logistic
regression analysis, the social group STs was assigned as the
reference category in a threefold classification of caste – STs, SCs,
Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and others. Religion was also
taken as a control variable with the categories Hindu (reference),
Muslim and Others. The last category consisted of all other reli-
gious groups. For the variable sex, male was taken as the refer-
ence group. Marital status was also included in the model (with
single as the reference category). To know the likelihood of tem-
porary migration, the variable state/union territory was included
in the models. Rajasthan was taken as the reference category
since its seasonal migration rates in rural and urban
areas are equal to the national average.
Four different sets of logistic regression models were applied
for examining the associated factors of temporary migration. In
model I, for which regression was run on the sample of the working-
age population of rural areas, MPCE, landholding and educational
attainment were taken into consideration. In model II, along
with MPCE quintiles, landholding and education, caste, religion,
household size, sex, marital status and state were included as
control variables. In model III, regression was run for the urban
sample using the same variables as those in model I. In model IV,
the same set of variables as model II were included using the
urban sample to assess the independent impact of these factors
on temporary migration. For ease of interpretation of the result,
only those states that were statistically significant were shown in
the logistic regression tables.
4  Results and Discussion
4.1  Regional Pattern of Temporary
and Seasonal Migration
Table 1 (p 84) presents the regional picture of temporary and sea-
sonal migration in India by showing the estimated number of
temporary migrants and temporary migration rate (migrants per
1,000 population) across states for all ages and in the working-
age population (15-64 years).
There were a total of 1,36,21,100 temporary migrants of all
ages in India in the reference period 2007-08. This figure falls to
1,30,76,500 when only the working-age population is taken into
account. Among the major states, the estimated number of tem-
porary and seasonal migrants in the working-age population was
highest (20,85,600) in Bihar, followed by Uttar Pradesh (18,96,500),
West Bengal (15,28,400) and Madhya Pradesh (12,36,900).
Migration rates were calculated to assess the intensity of migra-
tion, which was found to be highest in Bihar (50 per 1,000).
83
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
Table 1: Temporary and Seasonal Migrants, Temporary and Seasonal Migration Rate Figure 1: Rural-Urban Differentials in Temporary and Seasonal Migration Rate
(Migrants Per Thousand), National Sample Survey, 2007-08 (Migrants Per Thousand, Age-Group 15-64 Years), Indian States, National Sample
States Temporary and Seasonal Migrants Temporary and Seasonal Survey, 2007-08
(in Thousands) Migration Rate (per 1,000) India 6
India 26
All Ages Age Group 15-64 Years All Ages Age Group 15-64 Years 8
West
West Bengal
Bengal 37
Andhra Pradesh 789.5 725.8 10.5 14.2 Uttarakhand
Uttaranchal 2
7
Arunachal Pradesh 18.9 17.8 17.6 25.8 Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh 5
24
Assam 294.3 286.5 11.8 17.4 Tripura
Tripura 10
4
Tamil Nadu
Nadu 8
Bihar 2,125.7 2,085.6 28.2 49.9 16
Sikkim
Sikkim 0
Chhattisgarh 329.7 262.7 14.3 18.3 5
Rajasthan
Rajasthan 6
26
Delhi 52.1 52.1 4.0 5.8 3
Punjab
Punjab 7
Goa 8.2 8.1 5.7 8.0 Orissa
Orissa 6
20
Gujarat 1,147.8 1,107.9 23.2 33.8 Nagaland
Nagaland 66
43
Haryana 72.7 69.2 3.3 5.0 Mizoram
Mizoram 8
6
Meghalaya
Meghalaya 5
Himachal Pradesh 29.6 29.4 4.7 7.2 21
Manipur
Manipur 5
Jammu and Kashmir 102.7 101.9 12.4 18.6 5
Maharashtra
Maharashtra 2
17
Jharkhand 539.6 530.8 21.9 35.9 8
Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh 42
Karnataka 437.9 420.5 8.9 12.7 Kerala 4
Kerala 7
Kerala 132.0 127.2 4.4 6.3 Karnataka
Karnataka 6
16
1
Madhya Pradesh 1,262.0 1,236.9 20.9 33.5 Jharkhand
Jharkhand 44
Jammuand
and Kashmir
Kashmir 10
Maharashtra 728.1 682.1 7.7 10.7 Jammu 21
HimachalPradesh
Pradesh 2
Manipur 8.6 6.8 4.3 5.1 Himachal 8
Haryana 2
Haryana 6
Meghalaya 25.8 25.7 11.1 18.0 7
Gujarat
Gujarat 51
Mizoram 4.4 4.1 5.0 7.0 Goa 4
Goa 13
Nagaland 32.8 32.6 34.0 48.5 Delhi 6
Delhi 3
Orissa 437.8 430.3 12.0 18.2 Chhattisgarh 4
Chhattisgarh 21
Bihar 12
Punjab 127.7 89.8 5.4 5.6 Bihar 54
18 Urban
Rajasthan 737.3 724.0 12.7 21.1 Assam
Assam 17
24
Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh 26
Sikkim 1.7 1.3 3.3 3.9 2 Rural
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh 19
Tamil Nadu 578.6 542.4 9.4 12.8
0
0 2020 4040 6060
Tripura 12.8 11.2 3.7 4.8 Migration rate (per 1,000)
Uttar Pradesh 1,974.4 1,896.5 11.6 19.6 Source: 64th National Sample Survey 2007-08, unit level data.
Uttarakhand 30.9 30.5 3.6 5.7 Figure 2: Streams of Temporary and Seasonal Migration in India according to Sex
West Bengal 1,569.4 1,528.4 20.0 29.3 (Age-Group 15-64 Years), National Sample Survey, 2007-08
India 13,621.1 13,076.5 13.5 20.5 5 Urban to urban 5 5
Total of migrants of all states may not equal to the all-India figure because it also includes the 2 Urban to rural 3 2
migrants from union territories.
Source: 64th National Sample Survey 2007-08, unit level data.

25 Rural to rural
Among the major states, Jharkhand (36), Gujarat (34), Madhya 29

Pradesh (33), West Bengal (30) and Rajasthan (21) also had a
high intensity of seasonal migration above the national average 52

(20). Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, and

Orissa showed moderate levels (15 to 20 per 1,000) of seasonal
migration. The remaining states had a low intensity of migration.
Among the smaller states, Nagaland had the highest migration Rural to urban

rate (48) while it was insignificant in the remaining north-eastern 67

states. Differentials across states were more or less similar when
we consider migrants of all ages. Most of the states had high
levels of intra-regional inequality and seasonal migration was an
important livelihood strategy during the agricultural lean season
with people moving to big cities in the same state or to other
states (Breman 1994; Deshingkar and Farrington 2009; Jayara-
man 1979; Rogaly et al 2001).
Temporary migration in rural and urban areas had different
driving forces due to differences in the socio-economic status of
the populations. Therefore it is imperative to analyse the phe-
nomena separately. Figure 1 shows the temporary migration rate
by place of residence across states. We find a significant differ-
ence between the temporary migration rates of rural (26) and
urban areas (6). In rural areas, Bihar had the highest seasonal
84
63
40
Male
Male Female
Female Total
Total
Per cent distribution of migrants
Source: 64th National Sample Survey 2007-08, unit level data.
migration rate (54), followed by Gujarat (51), Jharkhand (44),
Madhya Pradesh (42) and West Bengal (37). In urban areas, Assam
had a high temporary migration rate (18), along with Bihar (12)
and Jammu and Kashmir (10). In general, rural areas had very
high migration rates compared to urban areas. In Jharkhand,
Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal,
january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly

Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan the migration rate
in rural areas was many times higher than that in urban areas.
Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Karnataka, Punjab and Uttarakhand
also showed comparatively higher temporary migration rates in
rural than urban areas. Interestingly, in states such as Assam and
Nagaland, the urban temporary migration rate was higher than
the rural. The findings show that rural-urban differences in
migration rates were not very significant in the southern and
north-eastern states.
Figure 2 (p 84) shows the distribution (percentage) of male
and female temporary and seasonal migrants according to the
four migration streams in India. It is seen that overall more than
half the migrants were in the rural to urban stream, followed
by the rural to rural stream. However, among females, the rural
to rural migration rate was higher. The dominance of rural to
urban migration among males reflected the increasing differ-
ences between rural and urban areas in India in terms of income
and employment. The informal sector in urban areas attracts
poor people from rural areas, mainly when there is a lull in
agricultural work.
4.2  Characteristics of Temporary and Seasonal Migration
The relationship between poverty and migration has long been a
subject of debate. It is well recognised that poor people migrate
for survival within the country and this mobility is generally in
the form of short-term migration, even though the capacity to af-
ford migration is low among the poor (Kundu and Sarangi 2007;
Skeldon 2002). In the absence of a direct measurement of
poverty, MPCE quintiles have been used as indicators to unravel
whether temporary mobility
Table 2: Temporary Migration Rate
is higher among the poor or (Migrants Per Thousand) according to
rich. Table 2 shows the cross- MPCE by Place of Residence (Age-Group 15-
64 Years), National Sample Survey, 2007-08
classification of migration MPCE Quintiles Rural Urban Total
rates according to MPCE quin- Lowest 44.8 8.3 40.6
tiles by place of residence. Lower 32.1 6.2 25.6
The result showed that the Medium 23.8 4.6 17.0
temporary migration rate Higher 17.4 5.0 10.2
was very high (40) among Highest 11.3 2.3 5.8
those in the lowest MPCE Total 26.4 5.5 20.5
Source: Same as in Table 1.
quintile and it decreased in
the higher quintiles. Among those in the lowest quintile in rural
areas, the temporary migration rate was almost 45 per 1,000
while it was 32 per 1,000 in the lower quintile and further
­decreased with ­increasing MPCE. The trend in urban areas was
similar but the degree of Table 3: Temporary and Seasonal Migration
change was smoother from Rate (Migrants Per Thousand) according to
Land Possession by Place of Residence
the lowest to the highest quin- (Age-Group 15-64 Years), National Sample
tile. Nonetheless, we find re- Survey, 2007-08
Landholding (in hectares) Rural Urban Total
markable rural-urban differ- Less than 1 29.1 5.4 21.2
entials with respect to MPCE 1-4 18.4 7.0 17.8
quintiles in migration rates. More than 4 10.9 11.9 10.9
On the whole, seasonal mi- Total 26.4 5.5 20.5
gration rates fell with an Source: Same as in Table 1.
increase in the size of land possessed by households (Table 3). In
rural areas, those belonging to households having less than
1 hectare of land had the highest rate of seasonal migration
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
(29 per 1,000). With an increase in landholding, the migration
rate decreased. The same did not hold true for urban areas.
Education is a reflection Table 4: Temporary and Seasonal Migration
of socio-economical develop- Rate (Migrants Per Thousand) according to
Educational Status by Place of Residence
ment and a prime determi- (Age-Group 15-64 Years), National Sample
nant of the job a migrant Survey, 2007-08
Educational Status Rural Urban Total
labourer is going to have. Below primary 29.1 7.8 25.7
As Table 4 shows, temporary Primary or middle level 27.9 6.2 22.1
migration rates decreased Higher secondary level 16.8 3.9 11.1
with increasing levels of edu- Graduate or above 17.4 4.2 8.3
cation. We find that people Total 26.4 5.5 20.5
who had less than primary Source: Same as in Table 1.
education showed the highest propensity to migrate. This trend
prevailed in rural as well as urban areas.
As seen in Table 5, temporary migration rates of different
social groups varied considerably with it being very high among
STs (45 per 1,000). The rate was 25 per 1,000 for SCs. In rural
areas, STs had a higher rate Table 5: Temporary and Seasonal Migration
of temporary migration (49) Rate (Migrants Per Thousand) according to
Social Group by Place of Residence (Age-Group
than SCs (30). Further, the 15-64 Years), National Sample Survey, 2007-08
results show that differen- Social Group Rural Urban Total
tials among social groups Scheduled tribes 49.0 6.5 45.2
were pronounced in rural Scheduled castes 29.9 6.7 24.8
areas but less remarkable in Other Backward Classes 23.9 6.5 19.5
urban areas. This confirms Others 18.0 4.3 12.2
Total 26.4 5.5 20.5
our proposition that the
Source: Same as in Table 2.
poor and socially deprived
in rural areas migrate more than others on a temporary basis. It
could be said that poor and socially deprived classes are more
mobile because of the distress-driven nature of temporary
migration in India. Table 6: Temporary and Seasonal Migration
Rate (Migrants Per Thousand) according to
Table 6 shows temporary Religion by Place of Residence (Age-Group
and seasonal migration rates 15-64 Years), National Sample Survey, 2007-08
by religion. The migrations Religion Rural Urban Total
Hindu 26.3 5.0 20.6
rate was highest among
Muslim 32.4 7.5 23.2
Muslims (23 per 1,000), fol- Others 14.8 7.6 12.4
lowed by Hindus (20 per Total 26.4 5.5 20.5
1,000). The pattern was the Source: Same as in Table 1.
same in rural as well as urban areas. Nevertheless, religious dif-
ferences were more prominent in rural than urban areas.
4.3  Factors Associated with Temporary
and Seasonal Migration
We fitted various logistic regression models to examine the effect
of economic factors while controlling for other social-economic,
demographic and geographical variables (Table 7, p 86). In the
rural sample, a statistically significant negative relationship be-
tween MPCE tertiles and seasonal migration was observed, which
implied that persons belonging to lower income groups were
more likely to migrate temporarily (in model I).
Further, the likelihood of temporary migration declined with
more land being owned by a household, which confirms previous
research findings (Connell et al 1976). A plausible explanation
may be that households with smaller landholdings try to diversify
their activities through seasonal migration to supplement rural
income in the agricultural lean season (Hugo 1985; Vanwey 2003).
85
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
Table 7: Results of Logistic Regression Analysis for Determinants of Temporary and
Seasonal Migration in Rural Areas (Age-Group 15-64 Years), National Sample Survey, 2007-08
Covariates Rural (N=235682)
Model I Model II
MPCE tertile
  Low® 1.00 1.00
  Medium 0.62*** 0.71***
  High 0.36*** 0.53***
Educational attainment   High 0.52*** 0.58***
  Below primary® 1.00 1.00
  Primary or middle 1.09*** 0.67***
  Secondary or higher 0.79*** 0.47***
Land possession   Secondary or higher 0.66*** 0.43***
  Less than 1 hectare® 1.00 1.00
  1-4 hectares 0.70*** 0.77***
  More than 4 hectares 0.48*** 0.54***
Social group   More than 4 hectares 2.91*** 3.70***
  Scheduled tribes® 1.00
  Scheduled castes 0.60***
  Other Backward Classes 0.52***
  Others 0.47***
Religion
  Hindu® 1.00
  Muslim 1.21***
  Others 0.81*
Size of the household   Muslim 1.30*
  Less than 5® 1.00
  5 or more 1.04
Sex   Less than 5 1.00
  Male® 1.00
  Female 0.13***
Marital status   Male® 1.00
  Single® 1.00
  Currently married 1.57***
State   Single 1.00
  Rajasthan® 1.00
  Andhra Pradesh 0.77**
  Assam 0.74*
  Bihar 2.00***
  Gujarat 2.09***
  Haryana 0.31***
  Himachal Pradesh 0.50*
  Karnataka 0.66***
  Kerala 0.48***
  Madhya Pradesh 1.30***
  Maharashtra 0.76***
  Manipur 0.26*
  Meghalaya 0.73*
  Nagaland 2.64**
  Orissa 0.59***
  Punjab 0.46***
  Tamil Nadu 0.78**
  Tripura 0.12***
  West Bengal 1.28***
  Chhattisgarh 0.61***
  Jharkhand 1.38***
  Uttarakhand 0.35***
  Agea 0.96***
*p<0.1,  **p<0.05,  ***p<0.001;  ® reference category;  a continuous variable;  only statistically
significant states are shown in the table.
Source: Same as in Table 1.
We also found a negative association between educational
attainment and temporary migration. It showed that those with a
lower level of education had the highest propensity to migrate.
These relationships were not distorted even after controlling for
86
Table 8: Results of Logistic Regression Analysis for Determinants of Temporary
and Seasonal Migration in Urban Areas (Age-Group 15-64 Years), National Sample
Survey, 2007-08
Covariates Urban (N=134922)
Model III Model IV
MPCE tertile
  Low® 1.00 1.00
  Medium 0.62*** 0.65***
Educational attainment
  Below primary® 1.00 1.00
  Primary or middle 0.88 0.58***
Land possession
  Less than 1 hectare 1.00 1.00
  1-4 hectares 1.31 1.33
Social group
  Scheduled tribes® 1.00
  Scheduled castes 1.71*
  Other Backward Classes 1.70*
  Others 1.41
Religion
  Hindu® 1.00
  Others 2.19***
Size of the household
  5 or more 0.84*
Sex
  Female 0.17***
Marital status
  Currently married 0.85*
State
  Rajasthan 1.00
  Andhra Pradesh 0.37***
  Arunachal Pradesh 3.54*
  Assam 3.83**
  Bihar 1.60*
  Haryana 0.40*
  Maharashtra 0.40***
  Nagaland 12.98***
  Punjab 0.34**
  Uttar Pradesh 0.65*
  Tamil Nadu 1.43*
  Jharkhand 0.20*
  Uttarakhand 0.28*
  Agea 0.98***
*p<0.1,  **p<0.05,  ***p<0.001;  ® reference category;  a continuous variable;  only statistically
significant states are shown in the table.
social group, religion, size of household, sex, marital status and
state (model II). Nevertheless, those with less than primary edu-
cation were found to be highly mobile on a temporary basis com-
pared to those with middle-level education or higher. It could be
inferred that the chances of temporary migration in rural areas
went down with an increasing level of education. These results
were consistent with earlier studies (Keshri and Bhagat 2010). It
can be seen that the logistic regression results endorsed the
bi-variate results relating to social group. STs were two times
more likely to migrate seasonally compared to SCs and other caste
january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

groups. Muslims were significantly more likely to migrate than 5  Conclusions

Hindus and others. The results also showed that males had higher
odds of migrating than females. This could lead to the inference
that males have higher chances of migrating temporarily when
other factors are controlled for in rural areas.
The results suggested that people from Bihar and Gujarat were
two times more likely to migrate temporarily or seasonally com-
pared to those from Rajasthan (which has a temporary migration
rate equal to that of India). Rural inhabitants of Madhya Pradesh,
West Bengal, Nagaland and Jharkhand were more likely to migrate
compared to the remaining states in the country. We found that
those belonging to economically backward and low-growth
states had a higher likelihood of migrating seasonally. However,
Gujarat, a high-growing state, was an exception to this. This was
probably because the state has had a history of seasonal migra-
tion from its southern and south-eastern parts that consist of dry,
hilly and tribal-dominated districts (Breman 1994; Krishna et al
2003; Jayaraman 1979).
The logistic regression results for the urban sample were more
or less similar to that of rural areas with an exception pertaining
to landholding (in model III) (Table 8, p 86). It was observed that
those from households with more than 4 hectares of land had a
higher likelihood of migrating seasonally. After controlling for
other socio-economic variables (in model IV), we find that in ur-
ban areas as well the chances of temporary migration decreased
with increasing income.
This result is in contrast to an earlier study pertaining to urban
areas by Keshri and Bhagat (2010). Further, there was an impor-
tant deviation from the findings on rural areas in that SCs and
OBCs had higher chances of migrating temporarily in urban
areas. The same was true of lower educational levels, which
meant urban inhabitants with less than middle-level education
had higher chances of migrating temporarily. The results
suggested that urban people from Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Assam,
Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland were more likely to migrate
seasonally than from other states in the country.
Temporary and seasonal migration has long been an important
income diversification and risk-coping strategy in many agriculture-
based economies in the developing world. In places where access to
non-agricultural employment is limited, or climate (or technology)
prevents continuous cultivation, seasonal migration is often the
key to a household’s income during the agricultural lean season.
It is not only an important form of labour mobility in a country
with an increasing shift of the labour force from agriculture to
industry and the tertiary sector (Keshri and Bhagat 2010), but also
critical to the livelihoods of socially deprived groups, especially
tribal people and those from rural areas who lack of employment
at their place of origin. This study presents regional patterns and,
more importantly, the socio-economic determinants of tempo-
rary and seasonal migration in India more specifically.
Regional variations in temporary migration are noteworthy in
a country. Bihar, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, West
Bengal and Nagaland have a very high intensity of migration. All
these states either have a high level of intra-state inequality or
a high proportion of STs and SCs. We observe stark rural-urban
differentials in the intensity of temporary migration, which may
be explained by differentials in levels of economic development in
rural and urban areas and the resulting availability of employment.
Overall, temporary and seasonal migration declines with better
economic and educational status. In rural areas, those with in-
creasing incomes become less prone to migrate temporarily. Social
factors play a critical role in migration decisions. Those belong-
ing to STs have a higher chance of migrating seasonally than peo-
ple in any other social group. This finding corresponds to earlier
studies, which have documented that lower caste and tribal people
trapped in poverty have a greater propensity to migrate seasonally
(Breman 1996; Deshingkar and Start 2003; Keshri and Bhagat
2004; Mosse et al 2005; Rao and Rana 1997; Rao 2005; Rogaly et
al 2001). In short, the study concludes that temporary mobility is
higher among the poorer sections of Indian society irrespective
of the level of economic development of the states concerned.

Notes
1 Keshri and Bhagat (2010) point out that according
to earlier NSS migration-related data (1999-2000),
a larger proportion (around 20%) of temporary
migrants belonged to the 0-14 age-group. Such
discrepancies are not found in the 64th round
(2007-08).
2 We consider the working age-group (15-64) popu-
lation for the analysis because it is assumed that
temporary migration is employment-related. How-
ever, for state-wise estimates, the whole sample
was considered.
3 Binary logistic regression models are used where
the dependent variable is in a binary form.
References
Banerjee, A and S Raju (2009): “Gendered Mobility:
Women Migrants and Work in Urban India”,
Economic & Political Weekly, 54 (28), pp 115-23.
Bhagat, R B (2010): “Internal Migration in India: Are
the Underprivileged Migrating More?”, Asia
Pacific Population Journal, 25 (1), pp 27-45.
Bird, K and P Deshingkar (2009): “Circular Migration
in India”, Policy Briefing No 4, Prepared for World
Development Report, Overseas Development
Institute, London.
Brauw, A D (2007): “Seasonal Migration and Agricul-
ture in Vietnam”, ESA Working Paper No 07-04
(FAO: Agricultural Development Economics
­Division).
Breman, J (1978): “Seasonal Migration and Cooperative
Capitalism: Crushing of Cane and of Labour by
Sugar Factories of Bardoli”, Economic & Political
Weekly, 13 (31), pp 1317-60.
– (1994): Wage Hunters and Gatherers: Search for
Work in the Urban and Rural Economy of South
Gujarat (Delhi: Oxford University Press).
– (1996): Footloose Labour: Working in India’s
Informal Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
Chandrasekhar, C P and J Ghosh (2007): “Dealing with
Short-term Migration”, Business Line, 25 September.
– (2010): “Migration for Work”, Business Line, 28
December.
Chapman, M and R M Prothero (1983): “Themes on
Circulation in the Third World”, International
Migration Review, 17 (4), pp 597-632.
Connell, J, B Dasgupta, R Laishley and M Lipton
(1976): Migration from Rural Areas: The Evidence
from Village Studies (Delhi: Oxford University
Press).
Dayal, H and A K Karan (2003): Labour Migration
from Jharkhand, Institute for Human Develop-
ment, New Delhi.
Deshingkar, P (2006): “Internal Migration, Poverty
and Development in Asia”, Briefing Paper, Over-
seas Development Institute, London.
Deshingkar, P and S Akter (2009): “Migration and
Human Development in India”, Research Paper
2009/13, Human Development Reports, UNDP.
Deshingkar, P and J Farrington (2009): “A Framework
of Understanding Circular Migration” in P Desh-
ingkar and J Farrington (ed.), Circular Migration
and Multilocational Livelihood Strategies in Rural
India (New York: Oxford University Press).
Deshingkar, P and S Grimm (2005): “Internal Migration
and Development: A Global Perspective”, Paper
for International Organisation for Migration,
­Geneva.
Deshingkar, P, R Khandelwal and J Farrington (2008):
“Support for Migrant Workers: The Missing Link
in India’s Development”, Natural Resource Per-
spectives, 117, Overseas Development Institute,
London.
Deshingkar, P and D Start (2003): “Seasonal Migra-
tion for Livelihoods in India: Coping, Accumula-
tion and Exclusion”, Working Paper 220, Overseas
Development Institute, London.

Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4 87
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
Gnanou, K M (2008): “Debt Bondage, Seasonal Migra-
tion and Alternative Issues: Lessons from Tamil
Nadu (India)”, Autrepart, 30, pp 127-42.
Ha, W, J Yi and J Zhang (2009): “Inequality and Inter-
nal Migration in China: Evidence from Village
Panel Data”, Research Paper, Human Develop-
ment Reports, UNDP.
Haberfeld, Y, R K Menaria, B B Sahoo and R N Vyas
(1999): “Seasonal Migration of Rural Labour in
India”, Population Research and Policy Review,
18 (5), pp 471-87.
Hugo, G J (1982): “Circular Migration in Indonesia”,
Population and Development Review, 8 (1), pp 59-83.
– (1985): “Circulation in West Java, Indonesia” in R M
Prothero and M Chapman (ed.), Circulation in
Third World Countries (Boston: Routledge and
Kegan Paul).
Jayaraman, T K (1979): “Seasonal Migration of Tribal
Labour: An Irrigation Project in Gujarat”, Economic
& Political Weekly, 14 (41), pp 1727-32.
Keshri, K and R B Bhagat (2004): “Temporary and
Seasonal Migration in India: The Magnitude,
Pattern and Characteristics”, Malaysian Journal
of Tropical Geography, 35(1-2): 17-30.
– (2010): “Temporary and Seasonal Migration in
India”, Genus, 66 (3): 25-45.
Krishna, A, M Kapila, M Porwal and V Singh (2003):
“Falling into Poverty in a High-Growth State:
Escaping Poverty and Becoming Poor in Gujarat
Villages”, Economic & Political Weekly, 38(49):
5171-79.
Kundu, A and N Sarangi (2007): “Migration, Employ-
ment Status and Poverty: An Analysis across
Urban Centres”. Economic & Political Weekly, 42
(4): pp 299-306.
Lam, T Q, B John, R A Chamratrithirong and
Y Sawangdee (2007): “Labour Migration in
Kanchanaburi Demographic Surveillance System:
Characteristics and Determinants”, Journal of
Population and Social Studies, 16 (1), pp 117-44.
Mosse, D, S Gupta and V Shah (2005): “On the Margins
in the City: Adivasi Seasonal Labour Migration in
Western India”, Economic & Political Weekly, 40
(28): 3025-38.
Mukherji, S (2006): Migration and Urban Decay: Asian
Experiences (New Delhi: Rawat Publication).
National Sample Survey Office (2001): “Migration in
India”, Report No 470 (55/10/8), 1999-2000
(Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implemen-
tation, New Delhi).
– (2010): “Migration in India”, Report No 533
(64/10.2/2), 2007-2008 (Ministry of Statistics
and Programme Implementation, New Delhi).
Pham, B N and P S Hill (2008): “The Role of Tempo-
rary Migration in Rural Household Economic
Strategy in a Transitional Period for the Economy of
Vietnam”, Asian Population Studies, 4 (1), pp 57-75.
Prothero, R M and M Chapman, ed. (1985): Circula-
tion in Third World Countries (Boston: Routledge
and Kegan Paul).
Rao, N (2005): “Power, Culture and Resources in Gen-
dered Seasonal Migration from Santhal Parga-
nas” in S Arya and A Roy (ed.), Poverty, Gender
and Migration (New Delhi: Sage Publication).
Rao, N and K Rana (1997): “Women’s Labour and
Migration: The Case of the Santhals”, Economic &
Political Weekly, 32 (50), pp 3187-89.
– (2005): “Power, Culture and Resources in Gendered
Seasonal Migration from Santhal Parganas” in
S Arya and A Roy (ed.), Poverty, Gender and
Migration (New Delhi: Sage).
Rogaly, B (1998): “Workers on the Move: Seasonal
Migration and Changing Social Relations in Rural
India”, Gender and Development, 6 (1), pp 21-29.
Rogaly, B, J Biswas, D Coppard, A Rafique, K Rana
and A Sengupta (2001): “Seasonal Migration,
Social Change and Migrants’ Rights: Lessons
from West Bengal”, Economic & Political Weekly,
36 (49), pp 4547-59.
Singh, D P (2009): “Poverty and Migration: Does
Moving Help?” in Amitabh Kundu (ed.), India:
Urban Poverty Report 2009 (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press).
Skeldon, R (2002): “Migration and Poverty”, Asia-
Pacific Population Journal, 17 (4), pp 67-82.
Srivastava, R and S K Sasikumar (2003): “An Over-
view of Migration in India, Its Impacts and Key
Issues”, paper presented at Regional Conference
on Migration, Development and Pro-Poor Policy
Choices in Asia, Dhaka.
Stark, O and D E Bloom (1985): “The New Economics
of Labour Migration”, American Economic Review,
75 (2), pp 173-78.
Stark, O and D Levhari (1982): “On Migration and
Risk in LDCs”, Economic and Cultural Change, 31,
pp 191-96.
Vanwey, L K (2003): “Land Ownership as a Determinant
of Temporary Migration in Nang Rong, Thailand”,
European Journal of Population, 19 (2), pp 121-45.
Vijay, G (2005): “Migration, Vulnerability and Insecu-
rity in New Industrial Labour Markets”, Economic
& Political Weekly, 40 (22), pp 2304-12.
Yang, X (1992): “Temporary Migration and Its
Frequency from Urban Households in China”,
Asia Pacific Population Journal, 7 (1), pp 27-50.
Yang, X and F Guo (1999): “Differences in Determi-
nants of Temporary Labour Migration in China:
A Multilevel Analysis”, International Migration
Review, 33 (4), pp 929-53.
Zelinsky, W (1971): “The Hypothesis of the Mobility
Transition”, Geographical Review, 61 (2), pp 219-49.

Economic Reforms and Growth in India

Essays from Economic and Political Weekly
Edited by
Pulapre Balakrishnan
This volume investigates the nature of economic growth in India, its pace over time, its relationship to changes in the policy regime and the role of the external
sector, and uses data to evaluate the policies that have implicitly underpinned the changes.
Presenting a range of approaches, views and conclusions, this collection comprises papers published in the Economic and Political Weekly between the late 1990s
and 2008 that are marked by an empirical awareness necessary for an understanding of a growth history. The articles reflect a certain groundedness in their approach
in that they privilege content/context over methodology.
This volume is an important addition to the literature on post-liberalisation economic growth in India. It will be useful to students and scholars of economics and
management.
Contributors include Deepak Nayyar • Rakesh Mohan • Atul Kohli • Arvind Panagariya • Kunal Sen • Neeraj Hatekar • Jessica Seddon Wallack • Pulapre Balakrishnan
• Ravindra Dholakia • Ramesh Chand • R. Nagaraj • Montek Ahluwalia • Shashank Bhide • Amit Bhaduri • Pranab Bardhan

Readings on the Economy, Polity and Society

This is the first book in a new series jointly published by EPW and Orient Blackswan. The series is being published as part of a University Grants Commission project
to promote teaching and research in the social sciences in India. The project (2010-12) is being jointly executed by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and
the Economic and Political Weekly. The series is meant to introduce university students and research scholars to important research that has been published in EPW in
specific areas. The readers draw on the EPW ’s archive of published articles.

Pp xiv + 454         ISBN 978-81-250-4271-6         2011         Rs 445

Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd

www.orientblackswan.com
Mumbai  Chennai  New Delhi  Kolkata  Bangalore  Bhubaneshwar  Ernakulam  Guwahati  Jaipur  Lucknow  Patna  Chandigarh  Hyderabad
Contact: info@orientblackswan.com

88 january 28, 2012  vol xlvii no 4  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly

View publication stats