34
Occupational Mobility
in Migrants*
INTRODUCTION
Migration in search of a better fortune is a nat-
ural characteristic of humankind since times
immemorial. People’s movement from one
area to other is always guided by the specific
needs of their time. The era after industrial
revolution witnessed unprecedented growth
in production and trade, which induced
large-scale migration of labour and capital.
This process led to a massive sectoral shift
in the economy from agriculture to tertiary
sector. Developed countries experienced this
change first, and gradually, it spread among
developing countries with the rise in urban
population and expansion of transport and
communication in the later half of the 20th
century. Indian society was perceived to be
* The present study is a part of the doctoral thesis of Arvind Pandey, submitted to Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi, in 2016. The authors are grateful to Prof. Ravi Srivastava for his constructive comments and suggestions.
Arvind Pandey
Ajit Jha
relatively less mobile in the first few decades
after independence, as internal migration was
very low and declining until the 1990s. The
predominance of agriculture, strong commu-
nity ties, lack of education, rigidity of caste
system, diversity of languages, culture and
food habits were the main reasons cited by
researchers for the immobility of Indian pop-
ulation (Chandrasekhar, 1950; Davis, 1951).
The structural adjustments in the economy
adopted by the Government of India in 1991
due to severe balance of payment crisis
changed this pattern. Both the secondary data
sources on migration in India and Census and
National Sample Surveys (NSSs) have shown
an increasing trend of internal migration after
economic reforms (Mahapatro, 2012; Parida
& Madheswaran, 2010; Srivastava, 2012).
 Occupational Mobility in Migrants
The growing spatial inequalities in terms of
economic opportunity and widening regional
gaps with the concentration of growth in few
areas and states have impacted the pace and
pattern of migration in India. Significant
improvements in the road infrastructure and
transportation and revolution in telecommu-
nication have facilitated labour migration.
Structure of the labour market has changed
under globalization with the generation of
demand of workers in certain sectors. The
supply side factors have also changed with the
changing social structure and pattern of edu-
cation (Srivastava, 2012). These aspects have
contributed positively to the process of migra-
tion of rural folks to metropolises in search of
a better livelihood, higher income and long-
term employment opportunity. The absorption
of these low-skilled and semi-skilled workers
taking place in informal sector jobs is mostly
casual in nature. The neoclassical framework
argues that migration from underdeveloped
to developed regions provides an opportunity
to the poorer sections of society for upward
mobility in terms of their employment. In this
context, it is an important question to study
whether rural–urban migrant workers remain
causally employed or their status of employ-
ment changes over the course of time. Several
studies (Baganha, 1991; Granato, 2014;
Fernandez-Macias, Grande, Poveda & Anton,
2015; McAllister, 1995; Sabirianova, 2002)
contextualize the employment and occupa-
tional mobility among migrants mainly based
on the experiences of immigrants in devel-
oped countries. However, studies on employ-
ment and occupational mobility of internal
migrants are limited in both developed and
developing countries mainly due to the lack
of reliable and adequate data of employ-
ment history of migrants (Nguyen, 2005).
The present study is an attempt to enrich the
existing limited literature on employment and
occupational mobility of internal migrants by
providing a pattern and determining factors
of employment and occupational mobility
of migrant workers living in selected slums
477
of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of
Delhi.
CONTEXTUALIZING THE THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK OF EMPLOYMENT AND
OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY AMONG
MIGRANT WORKERS
There are three forms of employment and
occupational mobility: (1) intergenerational
occupational mobility, (2) social occupational
mobility and (3) migratory occupational
mobility. Intergenerational mobility is con-
ceptualized as the occupational differentials
between two successive generations (Ray
& Majumder, 2010; Reddy, 2015). In India,
there are certain types of occupations which
are directly associated to a particular caste or
religion. The mobility in these types of occu-
pations is classified as social occupational
mobility. These two types of occupational
mobilities have been studied by several schol-
ars in India (Ray & Mazumder, 2010; Reddy,
2015; Thorat & Neuman, 2012). However, the
third form of occupational mobility is solely
related to migrants. It shows the upward/
downward occupational mobility of migrant
workers before and after migration and mobil-
ity within the duration of stay at destination.
There is dearth of studies which cover migra-
tory occupational mobility in India.
The theoretical framework of employment
and occupational mobility among migrant
workers is mainly based on the experiences
of immigrants because of limited availability
of knowledge about occupational mobility
of internal migrants (Nguyen, 2005). Recent
development in the migration studies shows
a changing perspective of scholars towards
the theories of internal and international
migrations, where they have tried to find a
convergence tendency between these two
processes and have developed the possibility
of studying both the processes in a coherent
framework (King & Skeldon, 2010; King,
478 HANDBOOK OF INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA
Skeldon, & Vullnetari, 2008; Massey et al.,
1993; Skeldon, 1997; Srivastava & Pandey,
2017). In this context, the broader framework
of occupational mobility among immigrants
can be used to determine the factors respon-
sible for employment and occupational mobil-
ity among internal migrants up to a certain
extent. It has been discussed in several stud-
ies (McAllister, 1995; Sabirianova, 2002) that
economic development is one of the main rea-
sons for employment and occupational mobil-
ity among migrants. The structural changes in
the economy affect the pattern of employment
and occupational mobility among migrants.
The gradual shift of economy from agricul-
ture to manufacturing and service sector led to
the change in the employment and occupation
of migrant workers. The status of the econ-
omy of a country also affects the pattern of
occupational mobility. It has been found that
at the time of recession, migrants settle for
low-paid jobs or become unemployed (Rajan
& Prakash, 2012; Zachariah, Prakash &
Rajan, 2004). However, in times of economic
growth, they experience upward employment
and occupational mobility depending on their
social and economic capital.
Empirical studies (Baganha, 1991;
Fernandez-Macias et al., 2015; McAllister,
1995) have established the hypothesis that
the occupational mobility of immigrants is
a ‘U-shaped’ curve. There is a decline in the
occupational status of immigrants and in-mi-
grants from the latest employment at place of
origin to first employment at place of destina-
tion due to cultural differences, limited knowl-
edge of labour market, lack of family and
social networks and inadequate education and
skills (Fernandez-Macias et al., 2015; Nguyen,
2005). With longer duration of stay at the place
of destination, the migrant generally moves
upward in terms of employment and earnings.
However, this ‘U-shaped’ pattern of occupa-
tional mobility among migrants is not univer-
sally true, as there are skilled migrants who
receive better employment at place of destina-
tion and move upwards over the course of time.
The discrimination approach as mentioned
by McAllister (1995) suggests that job availa-
bility for a newly arrived migrant at the place
of destination and occupational mobility of a
migrant (both upward and downward) depend
on the socio-cultural and economic character-
istics of the destinations.
The human capital of migrant workers,
such as level of education, formal and informal
learning of workplace, knowledge and skills,
languages and work experience also deter-
mine the occupational mobility of migrant
workers (Fernandez-Macias et al., 2015;
McAllister, 1995; Nguyen, 2005; Srivastava,
2011). Migrant workers who have more
human capital may find better employment
opportunities at the destination because of
the appropriate education and skills accord-
ing to the demand of the labour market at the
destination and better information compared
with others. They also move upwards because
of these individual characteristics (Nguyen,
2005). Socio-economic capital, such as exist-
ence of social networks at place of destina-
tion (Massey, Alarcón, Durand, & González,
1987) and possession of land holdings and
other assets at the place of origin (Pandey,
2017), also decide the occupational mobility
of migrant workers. Social networks not only
help the migrants to get their first jobs in the
city on arrival but also pre-inform them about
the skills required for the jobs. Over the course
of time, they also inform the migrants about
better job availability, and therefore contribute
to upward occupational mobility.
OBJECTIVES, METHODS AND
MATERIALS
The broad objective of the present study is to
analyse occupational and employment mobil-
ity among migrant workers living in slums
of a metropolitan city. This study also exam-
ines occupational and employment mobility
among migrant workers across social groups.
 Occupational Mobility in Migrants 479

The secondary data sources on migration pat-
tern in India (Census and NSS) do not have
comprehensive information on the occupa-
tional and employment mobility of migrant
workers, and therefore, to fulfil the aforemen-
tioned objectives, a primary survey was con-
ducted in eight different slums (locally known
as Jhuggi-Jhopri clusters [JJ Clusters]) of
NCT of Delhi from November 2014 to March
2015. It is evident from the studies (Bhan,
2013; Dupont, 2008) that in NCT of Delhi,
majority of the migrant population lives in
JJ Clusters. This was the main reason for the
the land of the Delhi Development Authority
(DDA), followed by the Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board (DUSIB), Railway and
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
Therefore, in the second strata of sampling,
two JJ Clusters were selected from each
district, one, which is settled on the land of
DDA, and two, which is settled on the land of
DUSIB or Railway or MCD.
After the pilot survey and field observa-
tions, the following eight JJ Clusters were
finalized for the present study:

29°0′0˝N

29°0′0˝N
selection of JJ Clusters for the study of occu- 77°0′0˝E 77°10′0˝E 77°20′0˝E

pational mobility among migrant workers.

Delhi N
sample JJ-Clusters
28°50′0˝N

Sampling Design

28°50′0˝N
Primary survey in the present study was con-
ducted in households identified through strat-
ified random sampling. In the first strata of
28°40′0˝N

28°40′0˝N
the sampling, four districts of NCT of Delhi,
South, South West, North East and North West
were selected based on the highest decadal
urban growth in 2001–2011.1
28°30′0˝N

The basic assumption behind the selec-

28°30′0˝N
tion of these four districts was the contribu-
tion of migrant households in the decadal
urban growth. During the preparation of
Commonwealth Games in Delhi, a large
28°20′0˝N

28°20′0˝N
number of slums were displaced from core Location of JJ-Clusters
River
areas to peripheries,2 which is reflected in the 024 8 12 16
kilometers River
negative decadal urban growth in the districts
located in the core (Central Delhi and New 77°0′0˝E 77°10′0˝E 77°20′0˝E

Delhi) and positive decadal urban growth in

the peripheral districts (South West Delhi,
South Delhi, North East and North West
Delhi) in 2001–2011. The percentage share of
slum households settled on the land of differ-
ent landowning agencies shows that in Delhi,
52.2 per cent slum households are settled on
1. South Delhi:
 Indira Kalyan Vihar, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, Okhla, (DDA) (2)
 V P Singh Camp, Tuglakabad (RAILWAY) (7)
2. South West Delhi:
 Dalit Ekta Camp, Vasant Kunj (DDA) (8)

1 The analysis of the decadal growth of the urban population is based on the Population Census of India, 2001
and 2011.
2 Several studies (Bhan & Shivanand, 2013; Dupont, 2008) have documented forceful displacement of slum
households from core to peripheries of NCT of Delhi. According to these studies, at least 60,000 households
were evicted from 218 slums between 1990 and 2007.
480 HANDBOOK OF INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA

 Sonia Gandhi Camp, Samalkha, Kapashera RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(MCD) (6)
3. North East Delhi:
 Dr Ambedkar Camp, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Raj Background Characteristics of the
Nagar (DDA) (1) Migrant Workers
 JJ Cluster, CPJ Block, New Seelampur (DUSIB)
(5) The results from Table 34.1 show that the
4. North West Delhi: majority of the migrant workers in selected
 JJ Cluster, B-Block, Meera Bagh, Near NG Drain, slums are from the two states of Uttar Pradesh
Paschim Vihar (DDA) (3) and Bihar. These states contribute 77.25 per
 JJ Cluster, B-Block, Near Samshan Ghat, cent of the total migrant workers. Madhya
Wazirpur (DUSIB) (4) Pradesh and Rajasthan are the other states
from where migrant workers migrate to Delhi.
Note: The numbers shown in the maps are mentioned in The migrant workers in selected slums had
the parenthesis in front of the respective JJ Clusters.
migrated in their early adulthood as the mean
age at migration for the sample is 20 years.
In the last stratum, 50 households were ran-
The main reason of migration reported by the
domly selected from each of the above men-
respondents was poverty, followed by low
tioned JJ Clusters, which include all types of
wages or income in source areas. These two
households, that is, households with the claim3
reasons acted as push factors. However, 34.17
of ownership of the jhuggi and rented house-
per cent migrant workers reported that they
holds. Therefore, total 400 households were
migrated to Delhi in search of employment
surveyed. The employment and migration his-
and to find better employment.
tory of the heads of the households were col-
Of the respondents, 60 per cent workers
lected from 400 households along with other
reported that they themselves took the deci-
socio-economic and demographic character-
sion to migrate to Delhi. The duration of stay
istics through a structured questionnaire. The
indicates that majority of the migrant workers
principle earner of the households was consid-
in selected slums are old migrants. The aver-
ered as head of the households in the present
age duration of stay for these migrant workers
study to avoid any confusion in this regard. In
is 24 years. It has been discussed in several
the employment history of heads of the house-
studies (Dubey, Palmer-Jones & Sen, 2006;
holds, information related to pre-migration
Srivastava, 2012) that caste plays an important
working status, post-migration working status
role in the process of migration. Certain castes
(first employment in the city) and the current
in India are historically deprived from acquir-
employment status was collected. Later, the
ing/owning any form of property, formal edu-
employment status of the heads of the house-
cation and other human capital (Dubey et al.,
holds was classified according to the nature of
2006), and therefore, rural-to-urban migration
employment, that is, self-employment, regular
is part of their survival strategy. This pattern
wage/salaried employees and casual labour
is reflected in the selected sample of the pres-
and industrial categories based on National
ent study. A total of 44.75 per cent migrant
Industrial Classification (NIC) Code, 2008. In
workers in selected slums were from Other
this study, the term ‘migrant workers’ is used
Backward Castes (OBCs). However, the per-
for the heads of the households to make the
centage share of migrant workers belonging to
analysis simple and understandable.
Scheduled Castes (SCs) was 42.25 per cent.
These two social groups constitute 87 per cent

3 The ‘claim’ word is deliberately used in the present study because at the time of survey, not a single household
could produce documents related to its claim of tenure status in the jhuggi.
 Occupational Mobility in Migrants 481

Table 34.1  Background Characteristics of Migrant Workers

Background Characteristics Percentage (N)

Place of origin Uttar Pradesh 41.00 (164)

Bihar 36.25 (145)
Madhya Pradesh 12.00 (48)
Rajasthan 5.00 (20)
Others 5.75(23)
Age at migration ≤15 29.50 (118)
16–20 39.25 (157)
21–25 17.00 (68)
26–30 8.75 (35)
≥31 5.50 (22)
Mean age (in years) 20
Reasons of migration Agriculture work is not remunerative 4.60 (51)
Non-availability of non-farm employment 3.61 (40)
Low wages/income in source area 19.39 (215)
Poverty 31.47 (349)
Socio-political conflict/displacement due to project 0.27 (3)
Natural calamities 0.45 (5)
In search of employment 16.41 (182)
To take up a better employment 17.76 (197)
Other reasons 6.04 (67)
Decision of migration Self 59.75 (239)
Parents 19 (76)
Self and parents both 5.5 (22)
Friends 1.5 (6)
Relatives 6.5 (26)
Spouse 3.5 (14)
Others 4.25 (17)
Duration of stay (in years) ≤10 8.75 (35)
10–20 30.25 (121)
20–30 42.25 (169)
30 and above 18.75 (75)
Average (in years) 24
Social groups Scheduled Tribes 0.50 (2)
Scheduled Castes 42.25 (169)
Other backward castes 44.75 (179)
Others 12.5 (50)
Religion Hindu 78 (312)
Muslim 22 (88)
Landholding (in hectare) Landless 62.00 (248)
Small landholding (≤0.25) 17.50 (70)
Medium landholding (0.25–0.75) 13.75 (55)
Large landholding (≥0.75) 6.75 (27)
(Continued)
482 HANDBOOK OF INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA

Table 34.1  (Continued)

Background Characteristics Percentage (N)

Level of education Illiterate 36 (144)00 (000)

Primary 13.5 (54)
Middle 21.25 (85)
Secondary and higher secondary 26.75 (107)
Graduate and above 2.5 (10)

Source: Primary survey, 2014–2015.

Note: The figures in the parenthesis are the samples in the respective categories.

of the total sample. The characteristics associ-
ated with SCs and OBCs are clearly reflected
in the pattern of landholding size at origin and
level of education of the migrant workers. In
selected samples, 62 per cent migrant workers
were landless and 31.25 per cent were small-
and medium-size landholders. The education
level of the migrant workers is also very low
as one-third of the workers were illiterate and
70.75 per cent had education up to middle
school. Only 26.75 per cent migrant workers
had secondary and/or higher secondary edu-
cation. Religion-wise distribution of migrant
workers shows a dominance of Hindu religion
among sample households. The number of
Muslim migrant workers was significant only
in the JJ Cluster of Seelampur and Wazirpur.
Pre-Migration Employment Status
The analysis of pre- and post-migration
employment status of migrant workers is
very relevant in migration studies. It not only
throws light on the economic motives of
migration but also provides insights into the
determining factors of rural-to-urban migra-
tion (Caldwell, 1968). In this context, the
employment status of migrant workers before
migration to Delhi was collected during the
field survey. Pre-migration employment status
of migrant workers is classified broadly into
six groups based on the response4 provided
by sample households, namely cultivators,
agricultural labourers, mining and quarrying,
manufacturing and construction, wholesale
and retail (including motorcycle repair) and
service sectors. However, a significant per-
centage of migrant workers were studying
before migration to Delhi, and are therefore
considered in a separate ‘not in labour force’
category.
Rural India is still dominated by the agri-
culture sector as majority of the rural popu-
lation in India is engaged in this sector as
cultivators or agriculture labourers. Only a
small percentage of workers in rural areas
work in the non-farm sector in small-scale cot-
tage industries, business and other activities. It
is evident from Table 34.2 that 68.25 per cent
of the total migrant workers were employed
before they migrated to Delhi and 31.75 per
cent were not in the workforce and were stud-
ying. Majority of the migrant workers worked
as agricultural labourers (42%) and cultivators
(11.5%) before migration. The high percent-
age share of the migrant workers in these two
types of employment is a manifestation of the
agrarian nature of rural economy in India.
Manufacturing and construction followed by
wholesale and retail (including motorcycle
repairs) were other sectors in which migrant
workers worked before migration.

4 A significantly high number of migrant workers were studying before migration to Delhi in each of the selected
JJ Clusters. The pre-migration employment status was also not very diversified. Therefore, the classification of the
pre-migration employment status has not been done on the basis of the NIC Code-2008 and nature of employ-
ment. This analysis is done only for post-migration employment status and current employment status of migrant
workers.
Table 34.2  Employment Status of Migrant Workers Before Migration to Delhi (Pre-Migration Employment Status) (in Percentage)
Not in
Employment Status before Migration Workforce
Manufacturing Wholesale & Workers
Agricultural Mining and and Retail (Including in
Districts Cultivators Labourers Quarrying Construction Motorcycle Repair) Services Subtotal Student Total

South Delhi (n = 100) 26 20 0 8 4 3 61 39 100

South West Delhi (n = 100) 8 52 1 5 1 2 69 31 100
North East Delhi (n = 100) 7 45 0 6 6 4 68 32 100
North West Delhi (n = 100) 5 51 1 8 9 1 75 25 100
Total (N = 400) 11.5 42 0.5 6.75 5 2.5 68.25 31.75 100

Source: Primary survey, 2014–2015.

484 HANDBOOK OF INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA
The percentage share of the OBCs and
SCs is high compared with other catego-
ries and a significant percentage of migrant
workers were landless at the places of origin.
Therefore, the analysis of the pre-migration
employment status of the migrant workers by
social groups and landholdings provides more
insights about the patterns of pre-migration
employment status of these workers.
It is evident from Table 34.3 that the high-
est percentage of migrant workers from SCs
and OBCs were agriculture labourers before
they migrated to Delhi. By contrast, migrant
workers in other categories worked as cultiva-
tors before migration. This social group-wise
occupational segregation is a direct conse-
quence of the possession of the landholdings
at the place of origin. It has been discussed
earlier that in India, land deprivation is high
among SCs and OBCs than among Others.
It could be one of the reasons why migrant
workers from these social groups used to work
as agriculture labourers. By contrast, other
category workers used to work as cultivators
because they owned lands at places of origin.
Compared with SCs and OBCs, the per-
centage share of migrant workers who were
studying before migration is high. It also
indicates the limited accessibility of human
capital for workers belonging to SC and OBC
categories.
The percentage share of migrant work-
ers according to the landholding size at the
place of origin supports the above results.
The migrant workers who owned medium and
large landholdings at places of origin worked
mainly as cultivators before migration. By
contrast, migrant workers in landless and
small landholding categories worked as agri-
culture labourers. The percentage of migrant
workers who were studying before migra-
tion also increases with increasing size of
landholding.
The aforementioned analysis shows that
social groups and landholdings at places of
origin significantly determine the pre-migra-
tion employment status of migrant workers.
Post-Migration Employment Status
(First Job in Delhi)
The location of a JJ Cluster determines the
nature and industrial category post-migra-
tion and current employment status of the
migrant workers, and therefore, analysis of the
employment status of migrant workers from
this section onwards is done at the JJ Cluster
level (Table 34.4).
The share of post-migration employment
status (first job in Delhi) of migrant work-
ers according to the nature of employment
shows that the percentage share of migrant
workers who worked as regular wage/salaried
employees at the time of migration (their first
job in Delhi) was highest (39%), followed by
casual labourers (34.50%) and self-employed
(26.50%).
The cluster-wise share of migrant workers
shows that the percentage of migrant workers
who worked as regular wage/salaried employ-
ees at the time of migration was highest among
the workers in the JJ Clusters located in indus-
trial areas such as Okhla, Jhilmil Industrial
area, Wazirpur and Tuglakabad. Initially, at
the time of migration, most of the migrant
workers joined the industries located in these
clusters as regular wage/salaried workers.
By contrast, the share of migrant workers
who worked as casual workers at the time of
migration was highest among the workers in
JJ Clusters located in residential areas such as
Vasant Kunj, Meera Bagh and Samalkha. It
can be explained by the information provided
by respondents that they migrated with a con-
tractor to work in construction of these resi-
dential areas as daily/weekly wage labourers.
The share of migrant workers who were
self-employed at the time of migration was
highest among the workers in JJ Clusters
located near the railway station and industrial
areas such as Seelampur, Wazirpur, Okhla and
Tuglakabad.
Industry-wise classifications (NIC-2008)
of the post-migration employment of migrant
workers provide more insights about the types
of first jobs of migrant workers in different
Table 34.3  Pre-Migration Employment Status of the Migrant Workers across Social Groups and by Landholding Size at Place of Origin (in
Percentage)
Not in
Sector of Employment before Migration Workforce
Manufacturing Wholesale & Workers
Social Groups/ Agriculture Mining and and Retail (Including in
Landholdings Cultivators Labourers Quarrying Construction Motorcycle Repair) Services Subtotal Student Total

Social groups
Scheduled Castes 6.51 52.66 1.18 3.55 4.73 3.55 72.18 27.81 100
Other Backward Castes 8.94 39.66 0.00 10.61 5.59 1.68 66.48 33.52 100
Others 38.00 16.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 62.00 38.00 100
Landholdings (in hectare) at place of origin
Landless 0.00 54.44 0.81 9.27 5.24 2.82 72.58 27.42 100
Small (≤0.25) 7.14 40.00 0.00 2.86 7.14 2.86 60.00 40.00 100
Medium (0.25–0.75) 43.64 9.09 0.00 1.82 3.64 1.82 60.01 40.00 100
Large (≥0.75) 62.96 0.00 0.00 3.70 0.00 0.00 66.66 33.33 100

Source: Field survey, 2014–2015.

Note: Due to the inadequate sample of Scheduled Tribes’ households (N = 2), they are not included in this table.
486 HANDBOOK OF INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA

Table 34.4  Post-Migration Employment Status (First Job in Delhi) of the Migrant Workers (in
Percentage)
Regular Wage/
Self- Salaried Casual
Districts JJ Clusters employed Employees Labourers Total

South Delhi V. P. Singh Camp, Tuglakabad 26 58 16 100

Indira Kalyan Vihar, Okhla Industrial 26 74 0 100
Area, Phase-I, Okhla
Subtotal (n = 100) 26 66 8 100
South West Delhi Dalit Ekta Camp, Vasant Kunj 8 4 88 100
Sonia Gandhi Camp, Samalkha, Kapashera 26 22 52 100
Subtotal (n = 100) 17 13 70 100
North East Delhi Dr Ambedkar Camp, Jhilmil Industrial 16 54 30 100
Area, Raj Nagar
JJ Cluster, CPJ Block, New Seelampur 56 32 12 100
Subtotal (n = 100) 36 43 21 100
North West Delhi JJ Cluster, B Block, Meera Bagh, Near NG 16 16 68 100
Drain, Paschim Vihar
JJ Cluster, B-Block, Near Shamshan Ghat, 38 52 10 100
Wazirpur
Subtotal (n = 100) 27 34 39 100
Grand Total (N = 400) 26.50 39.00 34.50 100

Source: Field survey, 2014–2015.

JJ Clusters and the reasons of the spatial con-
centration of migrant workers in a particular
sector. Post-migration employment status (or
their first job in Delhi) of the migrant workers
is classified into seven groups as follows, as
per NIC-2008:
1. Manufacturing
2. Water supply, sewerage, waste management and
remediation activities
3. Construction
4. Wholesale and retail trade (including motor vehi-
cles and motorcycle repair services) and hotels and
restaurants
5. Transport, storage and communication
6. Financing, insurance, real estate and business, and
7. Service sectors (community, social and personal
services)
It is evident from Table 34.5 that manufactur-
ing and construction were the two main sectors
in which migrant workers worked when they
first arrived in Delhi. These two sectors alone
constitute 70 per cent of the total migrant
workers. Wholesale and retail trade (including
motor vehicles/motor-cycle repair services),
restaurants and hotels and service sector were
the other sectors in which migrant workers
worked, but the overall percentage share of
these migrant workers is very low compared
with manufacturing and construction.
The post-migration employment patterns
of migrant workers can be better explained
by tracing the origins of the JJ Clusters. The
share of migrant workers who worked in the
manufacturing sector at the time of migra-
tion was highest in the JJ Clusters located in
industrial areas such as Okhla, Tuglakabad
and Jhilmil Industrial area. It was reported
by older respondents that during the estab-
lishment of industries in these areas, the
demand of labourers increased, and therefore,
migrants from the rural areas of surrounding
states migrated to get employment in these
industries. In this process, they started settling
on the public land surrounding the industries.
Over the course of time, other members of the
Table 34.5  Post-Migration Employment Status of Migrant Workers According to Industrial Categories (NIC-2008)
Water Supply, Wholesale and Retail Financing, Community,
Sewerage, Waste Trade (Including Motor Insurance, Social and
Management Vehicles and Motorcycle Transport, Real Estate Personal
and Remediation Repair Services) and Storage and and Business Services etc.
Districts JJ Clusters Manufacturing Activities Construction Restaurants and Hotels Communication Services (Services) Total

South V. P. Singh Camp, Tuglakabad 52 2 16 8 6 6 10 100

Delhi Indira Kalyan Vihar, Okhla 64 0 0 16 4 4 12 100
Industrial Area, Phase-I,
Okhla
Subtotal (n = 100) 58 1 8 12 5 5 11 100
South Dalit Ekta Camp, Vasant Kunj 6 0 88 2 2 0 2 100
West Sonia Gandhi Camp, 22 0 52 18 4 0 4 100
Delhi Samalkha, Kapashera
Subtotal (n = 100) 14 0 70 10 3 0 3 100
North Dr Ambedkar Camp, Jhilmil 48 0 30 12 2 0 8 100
East Industrial Area, Raj Nagar
Delhi JJ Cluster, CPJ Block, New 42 4 10 22 10 0 12 100
Seelampur
Subtotal (n = 100) 45 2 20 17 6 0 10 100
North JJ Cluster, B Block, Meera 10 0 68 8 4 2 8 100
West Bagh, Near NG Drain,
Delhi Paschim Vihar
JJ Cluster, B-Block, Near- 40 0 10 20 10 2 18 100
Shamshan Ghat, Wazirpur
Sub-Total (n = 100) 25 0 39 14 7 2 13 100
Grand Total (N = 100) 35.50 0.75 34.25 13.25 5.25 1.75 9.25 100

Source: Field survey, 2014–2015.

488 HANDBOOK OF INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA
households also joined the migrant workers
and the JJ Clusters spread over a large area.
The share of migrant workers who worked
in the construction sector at the time of their
arrival in Delhi was highest in the JJ Clusters
located in residential areas such as Vasant
Kunj, Meera Bagh and Samalkha. Migrant
workers from these JJ Clusters reported that
at the time of their migration to Delhi, mas-
sive construction work was happening to build
the residential areas close to these JJ Clusters
and most of the them migrated with contrac-
tors or co-villagers to work in the construction
of these colonies. Initially, they lived in the
makeshift arrangements provided by the con-
tractors on the empty land surrounding these
colonies. Over the course of time, they made
their own jhuggi on the same land and the JJ
Clusters came into existence.
The share of migrant workers who worked
in the wholesale and retail trade (including
motor vehicles/motorcycle repair services),
restaurants and hotels and service sectors at
the time of their migration to Delhi was signif-
icant only in Seelampur, Wazirpur and Okhla.
Current Employment Status of
Migrant Workers
The current employment status of migrant
workers shows occupational mobility of
migrant workers from their first employment
in Delhi (Tables 34.6 and 34.7). The share of
regular wage/salaried employees is still high
among migrant workers. However, compared
with the post-migration employment status of
migrant workers, the share of migrant workers
currently working as casual workers declined
with a corresponding increase in self-employ-
ment. It shows that over the course of time,
migrant workers have shifted from being
casual labourers to being self-employed. It
was observed during the field survey that
the migrant workers who worked as daily
wage labourers at the time of their arrival in
Delhi have shifted to being rickshaw pullers,
autorickshaw drivers, tea-stall owners and
owners of small grocery stores.
Comparison of post-employment status
and current employment status of migrant
workers also indicates the occupational shift
of a small percentage of regular wage/sala-
ried workers to being self-employed. It can be
explained by the observations made during the
field survey that over the course of time, many
workers who worked as electricians or motor
mechanics in industries later start their own
electricity shops. Likewise, migrant workers
who were in the age group of 30–39 years
when they migrated to Delhi and initially
worked in industries also shifted to being
self-employed as most of them opened small
shops and tea stalls inside the JJ Clusters they
lived in.
Cluster-wise share of migrant workers
shows that although there is occupational
mobility among migrant workers from being
casual and regular wage/salaried employees
to being self-employed, but nature of employ-
ment is still linked with the location of the
JJ Clusters of the migrant workers. Majority
of the migrant workers settled in industrial
JJ Clusters still work as regular wage/sala-
ried workers in nearby industries. Likewise,
majority of the migrant workers settled in the
JJ Clusters surrounding the residential colo-
nies still work as casual labours.
Industry-wise classification of the current
employment status of migrant workers shows
that the dominance of manufacturing and con-
struction has declined over the course of time
as the percentage shares of migrant workers
currently working in these two sectors are
low compared with that of migrant workers
who worked in manufacturing and construc-
tion at the time of their first arrival in Delhi.
The decline is more prominent among work-
ers in the construction sector. These migrant
workers have moved from manufacturing
and construction to transport, storage and
communication, wholesale and retail trade
(including motor-vehicle repair), hotels and
restaurants, financing, insurance, real estate
 Occupational Mobility in Migrants 489

and business services as the percentage share
of migrants currently working in these sectors
has increased compared with the post-migra-
tion employment status of migrant workers in
the respective sectors.
Cluster-wise industrial classification of
the current employment of migrant workers
shows that although the spatial concentration
of the particular types of employment still
exists in JJ Clusters, but compared with the
first employment of the migrant workers, it
has shifted towards other sectors. Comparison
of the post-migration and current employ-
ment status of migrant workers in different
JJ Clusters shows that the percentage share
of migrant workers currently working in
­manufacturing sector has declined in the JJ
Clusters located in industrial areas over the
course of time, as the percentage share of
migrant workers currently working in the man-
ufacturing sectors is low compared with the
share of migrant workers who reported their
first job in the city in manufacturing sector.
Likewise, the percentage share of the workers
in construction sectors has also declined in the
JJ Clusters located in residential areas than
that of migrant workers who reported their
first job in the city in the construction sector.
The share of migrant workers currently work-
ing in transport, storage and communication
has increased sharply. Other sectors in which
there is a slight increment in the percentage
share of the workers are wholesale and retail
trade, hotels and restaurants, finance, insur-
ance, real estate and business services. The
analysis clearly shows a sectoral employment
mobility among migrant workers.
The occupational mobility of migrant work-
ers in the present study is evident from the
aforementioned comparison of the post-mi-
gration and current employment status of the
migrant workers. Migrant workers in the pres-
ent study have shifted mainly from being casual
labourers to being self-employed and from con-
struction and manufacturing sectors to trans-
port, storage, communication, wholesale and
retail trades, hotels and restaurants, financing,
insurance, real estate and business services.

Table 34.6  Current Employment Status of the Migrant Workers (in Percentage)
Regular Wage/
Self- Salaried Casual
Districts JJ Clusters Employed Employees Labourers Total

South Delhi V. P. Singh Camp, Tuglakabad 52 38 10 100

Indira Kalyan Vihar, Okhla Industrial 28 70 2 100
Area, Phase-I, Okhla
Subtotal (n = 100) 40 54 6 100
South West Delhi Dalit Ekta Camp, Vasant Kunj 26 4 70 100
Sonia Gandhi Camp, Samalkha, Kapashera 30 30 40 100
Subtotal (n = 100) 28 17 55 100
North East Delhi Dr Ambedkar Camp, Jhilmil Industrial 10 68 22 100
Area, Raj Nagar
JJ Cluster, CPJ Block, New Seelampur 50 42 8 100
Subtotal (n = 100) 30 55 15 100
North West Delhi JJ Cluster, B Block, Meera Bagh, Near NG 38 10 52 100
Drain, Paschim Vihar
JJ Cluster, B-Block, Near-Shamshan Ghat, 50 42 8 100
Wazirpur
Subtotal (n = 100) 44 26 30 100
Grand Total (N = 400) 35.50 38.00 26.50 100

Source: Field survey, 2014–2015.

Table 34.7  Current Employment Status of Migrant Workers According to Industrial Categories (NIC-2008)
Water Supply, Wholesale and Retail Financing, Community,
Sewerage, Waste Trade (Including Motor Insurance, Social and
Management Vehicles and Motorcycle Transport, Real Estate Personal
and Remediation Repair Services) and Storage and and Business Services etc.
Districts Clusters Manufacturing Activities Construction Restaurants and Hotels Communication Services (Services) Total

South V. P. Singh Camp, 42 2 10 12 16 8 10 100

Delhi Tuglakabad
Indira Kalyan Vihar, Okhla 56 0 2 16 6 12 8 100
Industrial Area, Phase-I,
Okhla
Subtotal (N = 100) 49 1 6 14 11 10 9 100
South Dalit Ekta Camp, Vasant 8 0 70 6 10 2 4 100
West Kunj
Delhi Sonia Gandhi Camp, 30 0 40 20 2 2 6 100
Samalkha, Kapashera
Subtotal (N = 100) 19 55 13 6 2 5 100
North Dr Ambedkar Camp, 58 6 22 8 2 2 2 100
East Jhilmil Industrial Area, Raj
Delhi Nagar
JJ Cluster, CPJ Block, 38 4 8 24 16 4 6 100
New Seelampur
Subtotal (N = 100) 48 5 15 16 9 3 4 100
North JJ Cluster, B Block, Meera 12 0 54 12 12 0 10 100
West Bagh, Near NG Drain,
Delhi Paschim Vihar
JJ Cluster, B-Block, Near- 30 0 8 22 18 2 20 100
Shamshan Ghat, Wazirpur
Subtotal (N = 100) 21 0 31 17 15 1 15 100
Grand Total 34.25 1.50 26.75 15.00 10.25 4.00 8.25 100

Source: Field survey, 2014–2015.

 Occupational Mobility in Migrants
Occupational Mobility across Social
Groups
Social groups determine and assist in occu-
pational and employment mobility of the
migrant workers. Studies (Gupta & Mitra,
2002; Munshi & Rosenzweig, 2006; Panini,
1996) show that caste-based social networks
not only help in the process of rural-to-urban
migration but also often provide informa-
tion on job and space to the newly-arrived
migrants to settle down. Occupational choice
at the initial stage of migration of the migrant
workers largely depends on their social net-
works. However, the social networks also help
in the process of occupational mobility. In
sample migrant workers, 92 per cent reported
that they had previous social networks in
Delhi. In this context, the present subsection
provides the details of differences among the
post-migration and current employment status
across social groups and occupational mobil-
ity across social groups based on the nature
and sector of employment.
At the time of migration to Delhi, a high
percentage of migrant workers among SCs and
OBCs were casual labourers compared with
Others (Table 34.8). However, the percentage
share of regular wage/salaried employees was
highest among Others, followed by OBCs.
Table 34.8  Post-Migration Employment Status and Current Employment Status across Social
Groups (in Percentage)
Social Groups Self-employed
Post-migration employment status
Scheduled castes 19.53 (33)
Other backward castes 33.52 (60)
Others (General) 26.00 (13)
Current employment status
Scheduled castes 26.63 (45)
Other backward castes 43.02 (77)
Others (General) 40.00 (20)
Source: Field survey, 2014–2015.
Note: Due to the inadequate sample of Scheduled Tribes’ households (N = 2), they are not included in this table.
Samples are given in the parenthesis.
491
The percentage share of self-employed was
highest among OBCs, followed by Others.
This occupational pattern can be explained
by the differences in social and human capi-
tal among the migrant workers across social
groups. It was observed during the field
survey that migrant workers from the Others
category had better social networks than those
from OBC and SC, and therefore, majority of
them got regular wage/salaried jobs when they
migrated. However, a large number of migrant
workers, especially from the SC category,
migrated with the contractors/co-villagers/
family members who worked in the construc-
tion sector, and therefore, they also engaged in
this sector as casual labourers.
Current employment status of the migrant
workers across social groups shows occupa-
tional mobility among SCs and OBCs, as they
have shifted from being casual labourers to
being self-employed. Likewise, migrant work-
ers from the Others category have also moved
from being regular wage/salaried employees
to being self-employed (Table 34.9).
Sectoral distribution of the post-migration
and current employment status of migrant
workers across groups supports the aforemen-
tioned observation during the field survey, as a
high percentage (45.56%) of migrant workers
from SCs worked in the construction sector
Regular Wage/
Salaried Employees Casual Labourers Total
34.91 (59) 45.56 (77) 100 (169)
35.20 (63) 31.28 (56) 100 (179)
66.00 (33) 8.00 (4) 100 (50)
34.91 (59) 38.46 (65) 100 (169)
35.75 (64) 21.23 (38) 100 (179)
56.00 (28) 4.00 (2) 100 (50)
Table 34.9  Sectoral Distribution of Post-Migration Employment Status and Current Employment Status across Social Groups
Water Supply, Wholesale and Retail Financing, Community,
Sewerage, Waste Trade (Including Motor Insurance, Social and
Management Vehicles and Motorcycle Transport, Real Estate Personal
and Remediation Repair Services) and Storage and and Business Services etc.
Social Groups Manufacturing Activities Construction Hotels and Restaurants Communication Services (Services) Total

Post-migration employment status

Scheduled Castes 24.85 (42) 1.78 (3) 45.56 (77) 11.83 (20) 3.55 (6) 1.78 (3) 10.65 (18) 100 (169)
Other Backward Castes 40.78 (73) 0.00 (0) 30.73 (55) 12.85 (23) 6.70 (12) 1.12 (2) 7.82 (14) 100 (179)
Others 52.00 (26) 0.00 (0) 8.00 (4) 20.00 (10) 6.00 (3) 4.00 (2) 10.00 (5) 100 (50)
Current employment status
Scheduled castes 26.63 (45) 2.96 (5) 39.05 (66) 12.43 (21) 6.51 (11) 2.37 (4) 10.06 (17) 100 (169)
Other backward castes 40.22 (72) 0.56 (1) 21.23 (38) 14.53 (26) 13.97 (25) 3.35 (6) 6.15 (11) 100 (179)
Others 38.00 (19) 0.00 (0) 4.00 (2) 26.00 (13) 10.00 (5) 12.00 (6) 10.00 (5) 100 (50)

Source: Field survey, 2014–2015.

Note: Due to the inadequate sample of Scheduled Tribes’ households (N = 2), they are not included in this table. Samples are given in the parenthesis.
 Occupational Mobility in Migrants
when they migrated. However, 70 per cent
migrant workers among OBCs worked in the
manufacturing and construction sectors. In the
Others category, half of the migrant workers
worked in manufacturing and 20 per cent of
them worked in wholesale and retail trade and
hotels and restaurants.
The current employment status of migrant
workers across social groups shows occupa-
tional mobility. Although the construction
sector is still dominated by SCs and OBCs
and manufacturing is the main sector among
Others and OBCs, the share has declined in
the respective sectors across social groups.
The increasing percentage share of migrant
workers in wholesale and retail trade (includ-
ing motor-vehicle repair), hotels and restau-
rants, transport, storage, communication,
financing, insurance, real estate and business
in each social group, evidently shows occupa-
tional mobility across social groups.
CONCLUSION
The study examines the pre-migration
employment status of migrant workers living
in the selected Jhuggi-Jhopri clusters of NCT
of Delhi. It also compares the post-migra-
tion and current employment status of these
migrant workers and attempts to examine the
occupational and employment mobility over
the course of time. Analysis of the pre-migra-
tion employment status of migrant workers
indicates that before they migrated to Delhi,
majority of the migrant workers were agri-
culture labourers and cultivators. However,
a significant percentage of them were not in
the labour force as they were studying. The
social group is one of the determining factors
in this pattern of employment as majority of
the migrant workers from the Others cate-
gory were either cultivators or were studying
before they migrated to Delhi because of the
493
possession of landholdings at places of origin.
By contrast, a high percentage of SC and OBC
migrants were agricultural labourers before
they migrated to Delhi due to landlessness or
limited landholdings.
The comparison of post-migration (first job
in Delhi) and current employment status of
migrant workers shows occupational mobility
among migrant workers. The migrant workers
in selected clusters moved from being casual
labourers to being self-employed. This mobil-
ity was mainly among workers belonging to
the SC category, followed by those belonging
to OBC category. However, migrant workers
from the Others category who worked as reg-
ular wage/salaried employees also shifted to
being self-employed.
Sectoral distribution of the migrant work-
ers shows occupational mobility across social
groups. Construction and manufacturing were
the main sectors in which migrants worked
when they migrated. The current employ-
ment status of the migrant workers shows that
although these two sectors still dominate than
Others, over the course of time, the percent-
age share of migrant workers in these two
sectors has declined. Migrant workers have
shifted to wholesale and retail trade (including
motor-vehicle repair), hotels and restaurants,
transport, storage, communication, financing,
insurance, real estate and business. Social
group-wise occupational mobility is also evi-
dent from the present study.
One of the interesting findings of the
present study is spatial concentration of the
employment of migrant workers in different
Jhuggi-Jhopri clusters. The tracing of the
origins of selected JJ Clusters shows that the
share of migrant workers in the manufacturing
sector is high among the JJ Clusters located
near industrial areas. Likewise, the share of
migrant workers in the construction sector is
high in the JJ Clusters located near residential
areas.
494 HANDBOOK OF INTERNAL MIGRATION IN INDIA
REFERENCES
Baganha, I. B. M. (1991). The social mobility of Portu-
guese immigrants in the United States at the turn
of the nineteenth century. International Migration
Review, 25(2), 277–302.
Bhan, G. (2013). Planned illegalities: Housing and the
‘failure’ of planning in Delhi: 1947–2010. Economic
and Political Weekly, 48(24), 58–70.
Bhan, G. & Shivanand, S. (2013). (Un)Settling the city:
Analysing displacement in Delhi from 1990 to 2007.
Economic and Political Weekly, 48(13), 54–61.
Caldwell, J. C. (1968). Determinants of rural-urban migra-
tion in Ghana. Population Studies, 22(3), 361–377.
Chandrasekhar, S. (1950). India’s population: Fact and
policy. Tamil Nadu, India: Institute for Population
Studies, Annamalai University.
Davis, K. (1951). The population of India and Pakistan.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dubey, A., Palmer-Jones, R., & Sen, K. (2006). Surplus
labour, social structure and rural to urban migration:
Evidence from Indian data. The European Journal of
Development Research, 18(1), 86–104.
Dupont, V. (2008). Slum demolitions in Delhi since the
1990s: An appraisal. Economic and Political Weekly,
43(28), 79–87.
Fernandez-Macias, E., Grande, R., Poveda, A. D. R., &
Anton, J. (2015). Employment and occupational
mobility among recently arrived immigrants: The
Spanish case 1997–2007. Population Research and
Policy Review, 34, 243–277.
Granato, N. (2014). A work in progress: Prospects for
upward mobility among new immigrants in Germany.
Washington, DC, Geneva, Switzerland: Migration
Policy Institute and International Labour Office.
Gupta, I. & Mitra, A. (2002). Rural migrants and labour
segmentation: Micro-level evidence from Delhi slums.
Economic and Political Weekly, 37(2), 163–168.
King, Russel and Skeldon, R. (2010). ‘Mind the gap!’
Integrating
approaches to internal and international migration.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36 (10),
1619–1646.
King, R., Skeldon, R., & Vullnetari, J. (2008). Internal
and international migration: Bridging the theoretical
divide (Working Paper No. 52). Brighton, UK: Sussex
Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex.
Mahapatro, S. R. (2012, June). The changing pattern of
internal migration in India: Issues and challenges.
Paper presented at European Population Conference,
Stockholm University, Sweden. Retrieved from http://
epc2012.princeton.edu/papers/121017
Massey, D., Alarcón, R., Durand, J., & González, H. (1987).
Return to Aztlan: The social process of international
migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley, CA: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Massey, D., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino,
A., & Taylor, J. (1993). Theories of international migra-
tion: A review and appraisal. Population and Develop-
ment Review, 19(3), 431–466.
McAllister, I. (1995). Occupational mobility among immi-
grants: The impact of migration on economic success
in Australia. International Migration Review, 29(2),
441–468.
Munshi, K. & Rosenzweig, M. (2006). Traditional insti-
tutions meet the modern world: Caste, gender, and
schooling choice in a globalizing economy. The Amer-
ican Economic Review, 96(4), 1225–1252.
Nguyen, L. (2005). Pattern and determinants of occupa-
tional mobility of adult Ghanaian in-migrants in the
central region. Paper present at Population Associa-
tion of America 2005 Annual Meeting Program, Phila-
delphia, PA. Retrieved from http://paa2005.princeton.
edu/papers/50333
Pandey, A. K. (2017). Social protection of urban migrants
and state responsiveness: A case study of JJ clusters
in NCT of Delhi (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Jawa-
harlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
Panini, M. N. (1996). The political economy of caste. In M.
N. Srinivas (Ed.), Caste: Its twentieth century Avatar
(1st ed., pp. 28–68). New Delhi, India: Penguin Books
India.
Parida, J. K. & Madheswaran, S. (2010). Spatial heteroge-
neity and population mobility in India (Working Paper
234). Bangalore, India: The Institute for Social and
Economic Change. Retrieved from http://www.isec.
ac.in/WP%20234%20-%20Jajati%20Keshari%20
Parida.pdf
Rajan, S. I. & Prakash, B. A. (2012). Migration and devel-
opment linkages re-examined in the context of the
global economic crisis. In S. I. Rajan (Ed.), India migra-
tion report 2012: Global financial crisis, migration and
remittances. New Delhi, India: Routledge.
Ray, J. & Majumder, R. (2010). Educational and occu-
pational mobility across generations in India: Social
and regional dimensions (MPRA Paper No. 28539).
Munich, Germany: Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
Reddy, A. B. (2015). Changes in intergenerational occu-
pational mobility in India: Evidence from national
sample surveys, 1983–2012. World Development, 76,
329–343.
 Occupational Mobility in Migrants
Russell, K. Skeldon, R. (2010). ‘Mind the Gap!’ Integrat-
ing approaches to internal and international migra-
tion. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10),
1619–1646.
Sabirianova, Z. K. (2002). The great human capital reallo-
cation: A study of occupational mobility in transitional
Russia. Journal of Comparative Economics, 30(1),
191–217.
Skeldon, R. (1997). Migration and development: A global
perspective. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.
Srivastava, R. (2011). Labour migration in India: Recent
trends, patterns and policy issues. The Indian Journal
of Labour Economics, 54(3), 411–440.
Srivastava, R. (2012). Internal migration in India: An
overview of its features, trends and policy challenges.
Workshop Compendium, Vol. II: Workshop Papers,
495
National Workshop on Internal Migration and Human
Development in India. New Delhi, India: UNESCO/
UNICEF. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/
fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/New_Delhi/pdf/Inter-
nal_Migration_Workshop_-_Vol_2_07.pdf
Srivastava, R. & Pandey, A. K. (2017). Internal and inter-
national migration in South Asia: Drivers, interlink-
ages and policy issues (Discussion Paper). New Delhi,
India: UNESCO.
Thorat, S. & Neuman, K. S. (2012). Blocked by caste:
Economic discrimination in modern India. New Delhi,
India: Oxford University Press.
Zachariah, K. C., Prakash, B. A., & Rajan, S. I. (2004).
Indian workers in UAE: Employment, wage and work-
ing conditions. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(22),
2227–2234.