SPECIAL ARTICLE
Emerging Pattern and Trend of Migration
in Megacities
Reimeingam Marchang
Rural-to-urban migration, particularly between states,
towards megacities continues to contribute to their
overall growth, although the trajectory of migration is
shifting towards smaller cities. Based on analysing the
census figures from 2001 to 2011 and the National
Sample Survey Office data, this paper notes that
interstate and combined migration figures may be
rural-to-urban, but that characteristic is changing.
Intra-state migration to the megacities has emerged
as an urban-to-urban trend. Delhi is the most preferred
megacity for migration from other states.
Employment continues to be the single largest reason
for interstate migration, but it is declining. Whereas
reasons other than employment motivate people
for intra-state migration.
Reimeingam Marchang (reimeingam@isec.ac.in) teaches at the Institute
for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru.
56
M
igration is an inevitable phenomenon in a globalised
world and improves individuals’ social and economic
well-being via better opportunities in a secured
environment (Santhapparaj 1996; Faggian and McCann 2006;
Herrmann and Svarin 2009). Migration has major implica-
tions for urbanisation (Rao 1981); changes in land-use pattern
due to industrialisation, settlements, and infrastructure build-
ing that eventually generate employment opportunities and,
particularly in Asia, migration has also been linked to urban
growth (Guest 1994). In developing countries, rural-to-urban
migration and employment are closely related (Rhoda 1983).
Migration decisions are stimulated by real income or
earnings differential (Harris and Todaro 1970; Gupta 1987),
education (Cote 1997), inadequate land and employment,
widespread poverty (Barbora et al 2008), low agricultural
productivity in rural areas (Panda 2010), and natural disasters
and environmental degradation (Dasgupta and Dey 2010),
among other reasons. The propensity of migration increases
with an increase in the educational qualification of a person
(Friedlander and Roshier 1966; Cote 1997). Educational de-
velopment and scarce educational infrastructure in rural areas is
causing people to migrate to urban areas. Migration decisions
have a positive impact on employment patterns (Kundu and
Saraswati 2012) and increase in migration can exert pressure
on demand for a variety of services, infrastructure, and
resources (O’Lear 1997).
Globally, young people usually migrate to megacities because
of the demand for young, educated workers, and the availabil-
ity of enhanced opportunities for employment and education
(Guest 1994). In India, migration to cities is common among
literate youth (Sebastian 1989; Usha and Shimray 2010;
Remesh 2012; Marchang 2017, 2018a, and 2018b). However,
rural-to-urban migration is dominated by illiterate or semi-
literate peasants and labourers (Mukherji 2001).
Migration to megacities is driven by the lack of educational
infrastructures, unemployment, social unrest and political
tension at the origin of migration, and better educational and
job opportunities at the destination (Usha and Shimray 2010;
Chandra 2010; Kotkin 2011; Remesh 2012; Marchang 2011,
2017, 2018a, and 2018b). People migrate not only for jobs and
education but also due to a job transfer, marriage and personal
reasons (Bhatt 2009; RGCCI 2001 and 2011; Marchang 2017 and
2018a). Migration has become concentrated in specific areas
because new job opportunities are available in selective sectors
and urban centres (Kundu 2007).
april 9, 2022 vol lVii no 15 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

It is also true that migration has shifted to smaller cities from during 2001–11 when compared with 1991–2001. As the extent
megacities—a trend noted in other developing countries— of classifying urban areas slows down, it affects the extent of
because of growing industrial progress and the combination of urban agglomeration, resulting in a decline in the population
health, environment and unemployment crises in the bigger growth of megacities.
cities (Kotkin 2011). Against this backdrop, this paper analyses Megacities constituted only 4% of the total urban geograph-
the emerging growth patterns of megacities, changing wage and ical areas of India in 2001, which dropped to about 3% in 2011
employment in the selected cities, and the pattern and trend of due to the increase of overall urban areas by 31% during
migration, preferred city, migration trajectory, and reasons 2001–11 (Table 1), after many rural areas were classified as
for migration using secondary data from the Census of India, towns.3 During 2001–11, the growth of the area under megacities
National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) and other surveys. (5%) was slower than the overall growth of urban areas (31%).
This means that areas classified erstwhile as rural were fulfill-
Growing Population, Shrinking Megacities ing the definition of urban areas but rural areas in the vicinity
In India, urbanisation is consistently and rapidly growing of megacities that could be included in megacities were slower
because of rural-to-urban migration, natural population growth, to fulfil the criteria of urban areas.
classification of rural areas as towns, and change in employment In India, population in megacities has declined due to the
structure. The census data shows that the decadal growth rate growth of population in urban areas that are not megacities. In
of urban population remains higher than the growth rate of 2001, 15% urban population lived in these three megacities that
urban areas resulting in a rapid increase of urban population constituted 4% of the total urban area. In 2011, only 13% of the
density (Table 1), although urban population growth rates have urban population lived in megacities, comprising 3% of the total
slowed. The ever-increasing urban density along with a con- land area. It should be noted that the geographical area under
current increase of urban areas and a high urban population megacities has increased by 5% (Table 1) or 165 sq km during
growth indicates that urban population growth is contributed 2001–11. It shows a slow growth of urban areas to be incorporated
not merely by the natural population growth but also by into megacities as also a shift of preference from megacities
migration. This is also borne out by the fact that during 2001 towards a smaller urban area. It is also possible that people who
to 2011, urban population has grown at a much faster rate were in megacities have gradually migrated elsewhere due to
(32%) than the overall population growth rate (about 18%). congestion, environmental pollution and higher cost of living.
According to Census 2011, an urban agglomeration is a con-
tinuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining Differences in Rural and Urban Wages
outgrowths, or two or more physically contiguous towns Migration to urban areas occur when the expected real income
together with or without outgrowths of such towns.1 Adjoining from non-agricultural jobs exceeds rural real income derived from
outgrowth is a viable unit such as a village or a hamlet or an agriculture (Harris and Todaro 1970). Similarly, Gupta (1987)
enumeration block made up of such village or hamlet and iden- attributed rural-to-urban migration to a higher expected
tifiable in terms of its boundaries and location. In 2011, there were urban actual wage than the rural actual wage rate.
474 (384 in 2001) urban agglomerations
and 5,697 towns. Out of these urban Table 1: Area, Population, and Growth of Megacities in India
Megacity/Towns/ Year Area (sq km) Population Density Area Decadal Population
agglomerations, only three had a popu- Urban Agglomerations (million) (No per sq km) Growth (%) Decadal Growth (%)
lation of 10 million or more (megacities), Delhi urban 1981 580.95 (28.5) 5.76 (23.6) 9,916 – –
namely Greater Mumbai, Kolkata and agglomeration 1991 685.34 (25.9) 8.47 (26.3) 12,361 18.0 47.1
Delhi (Table 1).2 Before Census 1991, 2001 912.52 (29.5) 12.90 (30.3) 14,132 33.1 52.2
there was no megacity in India. Greater 2011 1,139.48 (35.0) 16.35 (33.5) 14,349 24.9 26.8
Mumbai urban agglomeration and Kol- Kolkata urban 1981 870.35 (42.7) 9.23 (37.8) 10,607 – –
agglomeration 1991 920.65 (34.8) 11.11 (34.5) 12,068 5.8 20.3
kata urban agglomeration with a pop-
2001 1,046.46 (33.8) 13.25 (31.1) 12,663 13.7 19.3
ulation of over 10 million were desig-
2011 1,056.13 (32.4) 14.06 (28.8) 13,311 0.9 6.1
nated as the first Indian megacities, Greater Mumbai 1981 588.50 (28.9) 9.42 (38.6) 16,010 – –
and Delhi followed in 2001. In 2011, the urban agglomeration 1991 1,040.90 (39.3) 12.60 (39.1) 12,101 76.9 33.7
population of the urban agglomerations 2001 1,135.11 (36.7) 16.43 (38.6) 14,478 9.1 30.5
of these three megacities has increased. 2011 1,063.49 (32.6) 18.39 (37.7) 17,297 -6.3 11.9
As of 2011, 38% of people in mega- Megacities 1981 2,039.80 [3.9] 24.41 [15.5] 11,969 – –
cities live in Mumbai, taking up 33% 1991 2,646.89 [4.1] 32.18 [14.9] 12,157 29.8 31.8
2001 3,094.09 [4.0] 42.58 [14.9] 13,762 16.9 32.3
of India’s megacities’ geographical area,
2011 3,259.10 [3.2] 48.80 [12.9] 14,974 5.3 14.6
33% of them live in Delhi against 35% Towns and urban 1981 52,390.63 157.68 3,010 – –
megacities area and 29% of them live agglomerations 1991 63,832.10 215.77 3,380 21.8 36.8
in Kolkata in about 32% megacities in India 2001 78,199.42 286.12 3,659 22.5 32.6
areas (Table 1). 2011 1,02,252.00 377.11 3,688 30.8 31.8
Figures in the parentheses ( ) are their proportion among total megacities; and [ ] are megacities proportion in towns and urban
Population growth and growth in the agglomeration.
areas of India’s megacities slowed down Source: Author’s calculation based on RGCCI (2001 and 2011) (Table A-4).
Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 9, 2022 vol lVii no 15 57
SPECIAL ARTICLE

In India, according to the NSSO (2014), there is a huge dif- and Delhi) continue to be a regular wage/salaried worker
ference between the daily earnings of regular wage/salaried (Table 2). Almost all employment in Class I cities were non-
employees of 15–59 years for rural areas (298.96) and urban agricultural, predominantly service-sector jobs that attracted
areas (449.65). Their wage level has substantially and con- migrants, particularly from rural areas (Table 3). Migration to
sistently increased over the years. Importantly, with an in- urban centres is mainly due to the expansion of the non-agri-
crease of educational level, the daily earning also increases cultural sectors, industry and services that assure employment
for them in both rural and urban areas. Irrespective of their and higher wages (Herrmann and Svarin 2009).
educational level, the daily wage was much higher in urban
areas. For instance, the daily wage for regular wage/salaried Migration in Megacities
employees who have a graduate degree and above was higher In India, 0.45 billion (37%) of the 1.21 billion population were
by 48% in urban areas (760.06) against the counterpart rural migrants in 2011, increased an increase from around 0.31 billion
employees (513.54). (31%) of 1.03 billion people in 2001 (Census of India 2011). As
It is also evident from the NSSO (2014) data that in India the expected, rural migration (68%) continues to dominate partly
share of regular wage/salaried workers (usual status—princi- due to abandonment of rural agricultural work and aspiration
pal status or PS + subsidiary status or SS) continues to remain of non-farm wage employment in urban areas and partly
much lower in rural areas than in urban areas due to the because of seasonal migration.
differences in the nature of the job. However, this aspect of The number of migrants to the three megacities of India has
employment showed some improvement. For example, only also increased from slightly over 15 million in 2001 to 22 million
about 10% of rural males, 6% of rural females, and 43% each in 2011. However, migration to megacities has slightly slowed
of urban males and urban females were regular wage/salaried down as the proportion of it to total migrants has declined
employee during 2011–12. The corresponding figures during from 4.9% in 2001 to 4.8% in 2011. As such, about 5% of the
1999–2000 were relatively lower at 9%, 3%, 42%, and 33%, total migrants in India have migrated to the megacities.
respectively. There are two kinds of migrations to megacities—intra-
Similarly, the majority of the employed (PS+SS) of Class I state and interstate. An interstate migrant (place of last residence
cities (coinciding with megacities particularly Greater Mumbai [POLR] as states in India beyond the state of enumeration) con-
Table 2: Distribution (%) of Usually Employed (PS + SS) Persons Aged 15+ tinues to constitute most of the migrants in megacities. How-
Years by Employment Status in Selected Class I City in India ever, it has slightly declined from 67% in 2001 to 54% in 2011
Gender Class I City 2004–05 2011–12 (Table 4). On the contrary, intra-state migration (POLR within
Self- Regular Casual Self- Regular Casual
employed Wage/ Labour employed Wage/ Labour the state of enumeration but outside the place of enumeration)
Salary Salary in megacities has increased during the same period. Interstate
Male Delhi megacity (Urban) 37.1 59.0 3.9 41.2 55.4 3.4 migration was very prominent but declining in Delhi urban
Kolkata 36.8 43.5 19.7 50.9 41.7 7.3
agglomeration (hereafter Delhi). Intra-state migration was the
Howrah 39.3 45.1 15.7 46.9 25.7 27.4
largest phenomenon and increasing in Kolkata urban agglom-
Greater Mumbai 40.3 51.7 8.0 33.2 64.0 2.8
Thane 34.4 60.7 4.9 43.6 51.7 4.7
eration (Kolkata). A majority of the Greater Mumbai urban
Female Delhi megacity (Urban) 15.9 79.6 4.4 21.1 78.3 0.6 agglomeration (Mumbai) migrants became intra-state migrants
Kolkata 51.6 44.2 4.2 39.0 49.4 11.6 in 2011. Kolkata and Mumbai also experienced a decline of
Howrah 41.8 50.6 7.6 41.0 35.0 24.0 interstate migration that signifies lesser influx of migrants
Greater Mumbai 29.2 68.9 1.9 30.6 67.3 2.0 from other states.
Thane 34.8 65.2 0.0 30.3 69.7 0.0 Migration to megacities from rural areas continues to be
Source: NSSO (2015).
mostly interstate migration. It has increased marginally from
Table 3: Distribution (%) of Usually Working (PS + SS) Persons Aged 15+ about 69% in 2001 to 71% in 2011. Concurrently, intra-state
Years by Industry for Selected Class I City in India (2011–12)
Industry Delhi MC Kolkata Howrah Kolkata + Greater Thane Greater
migration from rural areas has declined in the megacities. It
(Urban) Howrah Mumbai Mumbai + means that rural people do not confine their migration to their
Thane
Table 4: Distribution (%) of Intra/Inter-state Migrants in Megacities in India
Agriculture 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 Migration Year Intra-state Interstate Intra-state +
Mining and quarrying 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 Destination Interstate (million)
Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban
Manufacturing 15.5 31.3 29.2 30.9 24.4 13.3 23.1
Delhi urban 2001 6.0 1.1 8.5 94.0 98.9 91.5 5.28 3.26 1.66
Electricity and water 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6
agglomeration 2011 9.4 1.7 19.1 90.6 98.3 80.9 6.83 4.16 2.47
Construction 4.3 2.3 9.7 3.5 4.3 8.2 4.8
Kolkata urban 2001 61.4 55.6 54.2 38.6 44.4 45.8 3.06 1.74 0.70
Trade 27.8 17.1 28.8 19.0 15.8 16.7 15.9
agglomeration 2011 79.9 63.8 88.0 20.1 36.2 12.0 5.22 1.66 3.03
Transport 8.4 9.5 7.4 9.2 9.9 10.4 10.0
Greater Mumbai
Accommodation
urban 2001 41.7 43.5 35.5 58.3 56.5 64.5 7.03 4.65 2.06
and food services 3.6 3.5 0.9 3.1 6.2 2.9 5.8
agglomeration 2011 53.4 41.4 66.2 46.6 58.6 33.8 9.96 4.86 4.53
Other services 39.1 35.5 21.1 33.1 38.5 48.0 39.6
Megacities 2001 33.3 31.4 28.3 66.7 68.6 71.7 15.37 9.65 4.42
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2011 46.0 29.4 61.2 54.0 70.6 38.8 22.00 10.68 10.03
Estimated sample Migrants—all durations of residence. It includes an unspecified duration. Total includes
for 15+ age (‘00) 26,859 21,647 4,220 25,866 49,372 6,440 55,812 the POLR unclassifiable as rural or urban.
Source: Author’s calculation based on NSSO (2015). Source: Author’s calculation based on RGCCI (2001 and 2011).

58 april 9, 2022 vol lVii no 15 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

 SPECIAL ARTICLE

state anymore, but increasingly cross their geographical state of people in megacities continue to live in Mumbai followed
boundary in search of better opportunities in another rural by Delhi and Kolkata (Table 1). Migration increases popula-
area of a megacity in a different state. Migration to megacities tion pressure that further raises resource depletion and over-
from urban areas was largely interstate migration in 2001 consumption of resources for livelihood and development
(72%) that has eventually changed to intra-state migration in (O’Lear 1997), and increases use of non-renewable energy,
2011 (61%), implying that in 2011 urban people from other traffic congestion and pollution (Durham 1991). It should be
states have not migrated towards megacities as much as in pointed out that in 2011, 53% migrated to Mumbai from Ma-
2001. It shows migrants in India have gradually migrated to- harashtra, whereas the corresponding figures for Kolkata
wards smaller cities and urban centres despite the number of and Delhi were 6% and 41%, respectively (Table 6). The dis-
migrants in megacities having sharply increased (Table 4). tribution of population and migrants in megacities does not
correspond to each other, meaning population size does not
Female Migrants determine the rate of mobility. Rather, migration is determined
More women seem to have migrated to megacities compared by the type of city, available opportunities, environmental
to men as the sex ratio of migrants has improved considerably condition, and security.
for intra-state, interstate and combined (intra-state plus Table 6: Distribution of Migrants in Megacities by Intra/Inter-state Migration (%)
interstate) migration (Table 5). In part, this is because of the Migration Year Intra-state Interstate Intra-state +
Destination Interstate
overall improvement in population sex ratio, wider socio- Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban
economic development and partly because of increase of Delhi urban 2001 6.1 1.2 11.3 48.5 48.6 48.0 34.3 33.7 37.6
migration for marriage. The sex ratio was better for intra- agglomeration 2011 6.3 2.3 7.7 52.1 54.2 51.4 31.0 38.9 24.7
state migrants compared to interstate migrants indicating Kolkata urban 2001 36.6 31.9 30.3 11.5 11.7 10.1 19.9 18.0 15.8
that female migrants largely remained within their state geo- agglomeration 2011 41.2 33.6 43.5 8.8 8.0 9.3 23.7 15.5 30.2
graphical boundary. Intra-state migration was dominated Greater
Mumbai urban 2001 57.2 66.9 58.5 40.0 39.7 42.0 45.8 48.2 46.6
by men in 2001; however, in 2011, it was dominated by women
agglomeration 2011 52.5 64.1 48.9 39.1 37.8 39.3 45.3 45.6 45.1
in the megacities. The latter has contradicted the assumption Megacities 2001 5.12 3.03 1.25 10.24 6.62 3.17 15.37 9.65 4.42
of Bhatt (2009) that migration was predominantly a male (No in million) 2011 10.12 3.14 6.14 11.88 7.53 3.89 22.00 10.68 10.03
movement while females were either residual in the process Source: Author’s calculation based on RGCCI (2001 and 2011).
of migration or dependent followers. Men continued to out-
number women among interstate migrants suggesting that Transitions in Migration Trajectory
women may not prefer migrating to distant places owing to Importantly, migration to megacities was largely a rural-to-
emotional bonds with parents, family and relatives as well as urban phenomena as almost two-thirds of migrants to megaci-
concerns of safety. ties originated from rural areas among intra-state, interstate
Table 5: Sex Ratio of Migrants in Megacities by Intra/Inter-state Migration and combined migrants in 2001 (Table 7). In 2011, migrants
in India
Migration Destination Year Migration Population
originating from rural areas declined substantially, particularly
Intra-state Interstate Intra-state + for intra-state migration. Eventually urban-to-urban migration
Interstate
became dominant for intra-state migration. Interstate and
Delhi urban 2001 924 773 781 821
combined figures for migration remain a rural-to-urban one,
agglomeration 2011 1,012 904 913 868
Kolkata urban 2001 1,168 535 870 870
although a decline is noticeable. The pattern of migration, es-
agglomeration 2011 1,251 763 1,132 935 pecially interstate, is affected by the size of the rural-or-urban
Greater Mumbai 2001 881 628 725 822 geographical area of Indian states and various push factors
urban agglomeration 2011 967 714 840 863 such as underdevelopment or unemployment and pull factors
Megacities 2001 980 683 772 836 such as better job or educational opportunities. A similar pattern
2011 1,077 812 925 885 and trend of migration was observed for Mumbai. Delhi’s in-
Sex ratio is the number of females per 1,000 males.
Source: Author’s calculation based on RGCCI (2001 and 2011). terstate and combined migration remained a rural-to-urban phe-
nomena. However, for intra-state migration, most of the migrants
Preferred City of Migrants Table 7: Distribution of Rural and Urban Origin of Migrants in Megacities by
A majority of the migrants headed for megacities continued to Intra/Inter-state Migration in India (%)
Migration Destination Year Intra-state Interstate Intra-state + Interstate
migrate to Mumbai compared to Delhi and Kolkata (Table 6). Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
However, Delhi remained a favourable destination for inter- Delhi urban 2001 20.3 79.7 67.9 32.1 66.2 33.8
state migration, with interstate migration rates higher than agglomeration 2011 13.2 86.8 67.1 32.9 62.7 37.3
Mumbai and Kolkata. This is due to Delhi being the national Kolkata urban 2001 71.9 28.1 70.8 29.2 71.4 28.6
capital of India and the availability of many job and education agglomeration 2011 28.4 71.6 62.3 37.7 35.3 64.7
opportunities (Marchang 2011 and 2018b). Greater Mumbai 2001 73.5 26.5 66.4 33.6 69.3 30.7
Mumbai recorded the sharpest decline in intra-state mi- urban agglomeration 2011 40.2 59.8 65.1 34.9 51.8 48.2
Megacities 2001 70.8 29.2 67.6 32.4 68.6 31.4
gration rates, which did not hold true for Kolkata and Delhi.
2011 33.9 66.1 65.9 34.1 51.6 48.4
This has consequences for the population distribution of Migrants—all durations of residence. It includes an unspecified duration.
megacities as is made clear by the fact that the largest share Source: Author’s calculation based on RGCCI (2001 and 2011).

Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 9, 2022 vol lVii no 15 59

SPECIAL ARTICLE

originated from urban areas because urban areas comprise construction activities and industries are largely seasonal.
78% of Delhi’s total geographical area (Census of India 2011). Seasonal migration is an important form of labour mobility
In Kolkata, migration was predominantly rural-to-urban for with an increasing shift of labour force from agriculture to
the intra-state, interstate and combined type of migration in the non-agriculture sector (Keshri and Bhagat 2010). Rural
2001. In 2011, urban-to-urban migration phenomenon dominated people migrate towards urban areas in search of non-farm
intra-state and combined migration. Rural-to-urban migration means of livelihood driven by inadequate agricultural incomes
remained a major pattern, although declining, for interstate and landlessness. Such migrants were likely to be absorbed in
migration. Rural-to-urban migration is bound to grow rapidly informal jobs owing to lack of educational qualification and
because of the higher wage in urban areas than in rural areas, but employable skills.
this aspiration of presumed economic mobility does not coin- During 2001–11, the share of migrants in the overall popula-
cide with the volume of available job opportunities (Rao 1981). tion increased significantly, particularly for the combined and
Rural migration remained seasonal in nature because both intra-state migrants (Table 8). However, the decadal growth of
agricultural employment and non-farm activities in nearby interstate migrants has plateaued. The increase of migration to
Table 8: Migrants as a Proportion of Population in Megacities megacities is mainly due to the increase of intra-state mi-
Intra/Inter-state Migration Destination Migrants as Proportion Decadal Growth Rate grants. A considerable increase of intra-state migration shows
Migration of Population (%) (2001–11) (%)
2001 2011 Migrants Population the impulse of preferring and choosing to migrate within their
Intra-state Delhi urban agglomeration 2.4 3.9 103.9 26.8 own state’s geographical boundary due to the convenience and
Kolkata urban agglomeration 14.2 29.6 121.8 6.1 confidence of language, culture and social non-discrimination.
Greater Mumbai Moreover, the stagnation of interstate migration could be att-
urban agglomeration 17.8 28.9 81.2 11.9 ributed to the discrimination based on the origin of the state by
Megacities 12.0 20.7 97.5 14.6
the local non-migrants at migration destination. Migrants are
Interstate Delhi urban agglomeration 38.5 37.8 24.6 26.8
migrating towards smaller cities rather than megacities, since
Kolkata urban agglomeration 8.9 7.5 -10.9 6.1
the proportion of migrant population has considerably increased
Greater Mumbai
urban agglomeration 25.0 25.2 13.2 11.9 as mentioned earlier from 31% to 37% during the same period,
Megacities 24.1 24.3 15.9 14.6 perhaps owing to the notion that opportunities were also
Intra-state + available in smaller urban centres and living costs were afford-
interstate Delhi urban agglomeration 40.9 41.7 29.3 26.8 able in smaller cities compared to megacities.
Kolkata urban agglomeration 23.1 37.1 70.6 6.1
Greater Mumbai Change of Migration Reason
urban agglomeration 42.8 54.1 41.6 11.9
Megacities 36.1 45.1 43.1 14.6 Historically, migration to megacities was for employment,
Source: Author’s calculation based on RGCCI (2001 and 2011). business, and education. In 2001, employment (33%) was the
Table 9: Distribution of the Reason for Migration among Migrants in Megacities by Intra/Inter-state Migration in India single largest reason for mi-
Intra/Inter-state Migration Destination Year Total Reason for Migration (%) gration (Table 9). However,
Migration Migrants Work/ Business Education Marriage Moved Moved with Other
(million) Employment after Birth Household in 2011 migration along with
Intra-state Delhi urban 2001 0.31 6.1 0.4 0.2 7.7 1.9 25.3 58.5 family (28%) has become the
agglomeration 2011 0.64 9.7 0.5 0.5 12.9 4.1 36.6 35.7 single largest reason for migra-
Kolkata urban 2001 1.88 12.8 1.5 1.5 23.2 3.9 19.1 37.9 tion. During 2001–11, migra-
agglomeration 2011 4.17 8.7 1.8 0.8 25.2 8.7 24.8 29.9
tion to megacities for employ-
Greater Mumbai 2001 2.93 30.5 0.3 1.8 22.0 11.4 17.8 16.2
ment and education has de-
urban agglomeration 2011 5.31 19.5 1.0 1.2 16.8 9.5 29.8 22.2
Megacities 2001 5.12 22.5 0.8 1.6 21.6 8.1 18.8 26.7
clined, whereas migration due
2011 10.12 14.4 1.3 1.0 20.0 8.8 28.2 26.2 to business, marriage, moved
Interstate Delhi urban 2001 4.96 36.7 0.7 1.5 15.7 2.3 33.6 9.4 after birth, moved with house-
agglomeration 2011 6.18 30.7 0.7 1.5 18.9 2.4 34.9 10.7 hold, and other reason/s have
Kolkata urban 2001 1.18 35.4 4.5 1.3 14.2 2.7 22.8 19.1 increased. Migration for em-
agglomeration 2011 1.05 25.7 4.3 1.2 18.5 3.6 25.1 21.6 ployment has declined in Delhi,
Greater Mumbai 2001 4.10 40.5 1.4 1.3 17.9 7.8 17.8 13.3
Kolkata, and Mumbai. Migrat-
urban agglomeration 2011 4.64 33.8 1.6 1.2 17.5 7.4 19.0 19.5
ing for jobs to these cities has
Megacities 2001 10.24 38.0 1.4 1.4 16.4 4.6 26.0 12.1
2011 11.88 31.5 1.4 1.4 18.3 4.5 27.8 15.1 declined and it is likely that
Intra-state + Delhi urban 2001 5.28 34.8 0.7 1.4 15.2 2.3 33.1 12.3 megacities have reached a
Interstate agglomeration 2011 6.83 28.7 0.7 1.4 18.3 2.6 35.1 13.1 saturation point. A marginal
Kolkata urban 2001 3.06 21.5 2.7 1.5 19.7 3.4 20.5 30.6 decline in the share of mig-
agglomeration 2011 5.22 12.2 2.3 0.9 23.9 7.7 24.9 28.2 rants for business, education,
Greater Mumbai 2001 7.03 36.3 0.9 1.5 19.6 9.3 17.8 14.5
and other reasons was obs-
urban agglomeration 2011 9.96 26.1 1.3 1.2 17.1 8.5 24.8 21.0
erved in Kolkata. Similarly, mi-
Megacities 2001 15.37 32.9 1.2 1.5 18.1 5.7 23.6 17.0
2011 22.00 23.6 1.3 1.2 19.1 6.5 28.0 20.2 grants for education, marriage
Source: Author’s calculation based on RGCCI (2001 and 2011). and those who moved after
60 april 9, 2022 vol lVii no 15 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

birth has slightly declined in Mumbai. The shares for the rest
of the reasons have either stagnated or increased in the re-
spective megacities.
The single largest reason for intra-state megacities migra-
tion was for the “other” (27%) reason in 2001. Thereafter, in
2011, migration along with household (28%) formed the single
largest reason for migration to megacities in India (Table 9),
signifying a relocation or transfer of job of household’s main
income earner along with dependent family members. The
share of migrants for employment, education, marriage, and
“other” have declined; while for business, migration
after birth, and along with family has increased. A similar
trend was observed in Kolkata and Mumbai. Intra-state
migration for all reasons, except for the reason “other,” has
increased in Delhi.
Employment remained the single largest reason for inter-
state megacities migration in Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai, but
it is declining despite the pull factors of employment opportu-
nities. Again, migrants are increasingly choosing smaller cities
over megacities as their migration destination for employment.
Conclusions
The population of the three expanding megacities—Delhi,
Kolkata and Mumbai—continues to rise because of rural-to-
urban migration. However, this trend is changing as the trajec-
tory of migration is shifting towards smaller cities. Interstate
migrants continue to constitute a majority of the migrants in
megacities but it is declining as a share of overall migrants in
the population as people increasingly prefer smaller cities over
crowded megacities.
Interstate and combined migration figures still suggest a rural-
to-urban movement but that is fast declining. Intra-state migra-
tion to the megacities has emerged as an urban-to-urban trend.
Migration towards megacities affects its overall development
and policymakers should consider steps to generate non-agri-
cultural jobs in rural areas. The stimulants of migration such
as urban–rural wage differential, educational development, and
job opportunities require proper monitoring policy for urban
planning. Migration has major implications for urban housing,
employment, well-being and therefore, policies to address
these aspects need to be linked with migration policy.

Notes Simultaneous Equation Approach,” Oxford — (2018b): “Employment, Unemployment, Job

1 For details, see the Census of India (2011).
2 Greater Mumbai urban agglomeration includes
Mumbai suburban, Mumbai and Thane; Delhi
urban agglomeration includes all the nine dis-
tricts of Delhi; and Kolkata urban agglomeration
covers Kolkata, Howrah, Hooghly, South 24
Parganas and North 24 Parganas.
3 As much as 68 towns of the Census 2001 were
declassified as rural areas in the Census 2011,
while 2,701 towns were added as urban areas in
the Census 2011. For details, see the Census of
India 2011, A-Series Including Primary Census
Abstract Data (Final Population), Appendix – 1:
New towns added in 2011 and towns of 2001
declassified in 2011.
References
Barbora, S, S Thieme, K A Siegmann, V Menon and
G Gurung (2008): “Migration Matters in South
Asia: Commonalities and Critiques,” Economic
& Political Weekly, Vol 43, No 24, pp 57–65.
Bhatt, W (2009): “The Gender Dimension of Migra-
tion in India: The Politics of Contemporary
Space in Orissa and Rajasthan,” Development in
Practice, Vol 19, No 1, pp 87–93.
Census of India (2011): “Provisional Population Totals
Urban Agglomerations and Cities,” pp 1 and 2,
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/pa-
per2/data_files/India2/1.%20Data%20High-
light.pdf.
Chandra, M (2010): “North East Migration and
Challenges in Mega Cities,” Counter Currents,
8 December, viewed on 20 March 2022, https://
www.countercurrents.org/chandra081210.htm.
Cote, G L (1997): “Socio-economic Attainment, Re-
gional Disparities, and Internal Migration,” Euro-
pean Sociological Review, Vol 13, No 1, pp 55–77.
Dasgupta, G and I Dey (2010): “State of Research
on Forced Migration in the East and North-East,”
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 45, No 21,
pp 37–41.
Durham, D F (1991): “Notes on Carrying Capacity,”
Population and Environment, Vol 13, No 2,
pp 119–20.
Faggian, A and P McCann (2006): “Human Capital
Flows and Regional Knowledge Assets: A
Economic Paper 52, pp 475–500.
Friedlander, D and R J Roshier (1966): “A Study of
Internal Migration in England and Wales:
Part I,” Population Studies, Vol 19, No 3,
pp 239–79.
Guest, P (1994): “The Impact of Population Change
on the Growth of Mega-cities,” Asia Pacific
Population Journal, Vol 9, No 1, pp 37–56.
Gupta, M R (1987): “Harris-Todaro Migration-
Mechanism and the Optimum Development of
the Urban Sector,” Indian Economic Review,
New Series, Vol 22, No 2, pp 179–94.
Harris, J R and M P Todaro (1970): “Migration, Un-
employment and Development: A Two-sector
Analysis,” American Economic Review, Vol 60,
No 1, pp 126–42.
Herrmann, M and D Svarin (2009): “Environmen-
tal Pressures and Rural-Urban Migration: The
Case of Bangladesh,” UNCTAD, MPRA Paper
No 12879, pp 1–27.
Keshri, K and R B Bhagat (2010): “Temporary and
Seasonal Migration in India,” Genus, Vol 66,
No 3, pp 25–45.
Kotkin, J (2011): “The Problem with Megacities,”
Forbes, 4 April, viewed on 20 March 2022,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/megacities/2011/
04/04/the-problem-with-megacities/#247cea-
356f27.
Kundu, A (2007): “Mobility of Population,” Oxford
Companion to Economics in India, K Basu (ed),
Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp 443–48.
Kundu, A and L R Saraswati (2012): “Migration
and Exclusionary Urbanisation in India,”
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 47, Nos 26/27,
pp 219–27.
Marchang, R (2011): “Unemployment, Job Aspira-
tion and Migration: A Case Study of Tangkhul
Migrants to Delhi,” Eastern Quarterly, Vol 7,
Nos 3 and 4, pp 128–39.
— (2017): “Out-migration from North Eastern Re-
gion to Cities: Unemployment, Employability
and Job Aspiration,” Journal of Economic and
Social Development, Vol 13, No 2, pp 43–53.
— (2018a): “Migration from North Eastern Region
to Bangalore: Evidences from Census Data,”
Journal of North East India Studies, Vol 8, No 1,
pp 40–56.
Aspiration and Migration: Some Reflections of
Tangkhul Migrants to Delhi,” North East India:
A Reader, B Oinam and D A Sadokpam (eds),
Oxford and New York: Routledge-Taylor and
Francis Group, pp 168–83.
Mukherji, S (2001): “Low Quality Migration in India:
The Phenomena of Distressed Migration and
Acute Urban Decay,” 24th IUSSP International
Conference, Salvador, Brazil.
NSSO (2014): “Employment and Unemployment
Situation in India 2011–12,” Ministry of Statis-
tics and Programme Implementation, Delhi.
— (2015): “Employment and Unemployment Situ-
ation in Cities and Towns in India,” Ministry
of Statistics and Programme Implementation,
Delhi.
O’Lear, S (1997): “Migration and the Environment:
A Review of Recent Literature,” Social Science
Quarterly, Vol 78, No 2, pp 606–18.
Panda, A (2010): “Climate Refugees: Implications
for India,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 45,
No 20, pp 76–79.
Rao, M S A (1981): “Some Aspects of Sociology of
Migration,” Sociological Bulletin, Vol 30, No 1,
pp 21–38.
Remesh, B P (2012): “Migration from North-East to
Urban Centres: A Study of Delhi Region,”
VV Giri National Labour Institute, Noida.
RGCCI (2001 and 2011): “Census of India,” Regis-
trar General and Census Commissioner of
India, Delhi.
Rhoda, R (1983): “Rural Development and Urban
Migration: Can We Keep Them Down on the
Farm?” International Migration Review, Vol 17,
No 1, pp 34–64.
Santhapparaj, A S (1996): “Job Search and Earn-
ings of Migrants in Urban Labour Market: A
Study of Madurai Metropolis,” Indian Journal
of Labour Economics, Vol 39, No 2, pp 269–86.
Sebastian, A (1989): “Youth Migrants for Employ-
ment in India,” Indian Youth: A Profile, P S Nair,
M D Vemuri and F Ram (eds), Delhi: Mittal
Publications, pp 131–45.
Usha, D M D and U A Shimray (2010): Migration
from the North Eastern Region: A Study of Edu-
cated Youth from NER in Bangalore and Delhi,
Bengaluru: ISEC.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 9, 2022 vol lVii no 15 61