Urban Research & Practice

ISSN: 1753-5069 (Print) 1753-5077 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurp20

Migration, caste and livelihood: evidence from

Indian city-slums

S. Chandrasekhar & Arup Mitra

To cite this article: S. Chandrasekhar & Arup Mitra (2019) Migration, caste and livelihood:
evidence from Indian city-slums, Urban Research & Practice, 12:2, 156-172, DOI:
10.1080/17535069.2018.1426781

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1426781

Published online: 27 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 678

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rurp20
Urban Research & Practice, 2019
Vol. 12, No. 2, 156–172, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1426781

Migration, caste and livelihood: evidence from Indian city-slums

a
S. Chandrasekhar and Arup Mitra*b
a
IGIDR, Mumbai, India; bIEG, Delhi, India

This paper based on a primary survey of slum dwellers in four Indian cities examines
the caste dimension of migrants and the nexus, if any, between caste and the job
market participation. Based on the quantitative exercises, we observe overlaps between
social and economic status. A higher propensity to migrate is evident among the
population belonging to the general (GEN) category and other backward castes in
comparison to the scheduled castes and tribes who are at the bottom of the caste
hierarchy. The disadvantaged castes are not even in a position to take the benefits of
migration. Further, those with higher caste status seem to have better endowments
required for absorption in the urban job market; the migrants of higher caste status are
absorbed in relatively better jobs compared to the lower castes. Migrant workers from
GEN category draw relatively higher incomes. On the whole, when both the caste and
migration dimensions are combined, at the lower echelons, migration does pay if the
worker is better off in terms of caste status. From this point of view, it is argued that
special programmes offering improved access to livelihood opportunities need to be
pursued in the rural areas so that the disadvantaged castes are able to reduce their
vulnerability.
Keywords: caste; migration; labour market; slums; urban

1. Background
The development economics literature has expressed several concerns regarding migrants
from low income households, living in squatter settlements in cities with inadequate
space, sanitation and drinking water (Banerjee 1986). Whether they have newly arrived
from the rural areas or they have been residing in the urban localities for a long time is an
important research question since it involves important policy implications. However,
what is a bit under-researched is the caste dimension of the migrants and the caste–
livelihood nexus, if any, within the low income clusters in the urban destinations. These
issues were raised in the initial years of development but later, researchers shifted their
focus to migration and caste issues separately. Though the caste composition of migrants
of different durations and origins and the livelihood patterns of migrants caste-wise were
looked into in the past (Shah 2007), within the universe of the low income households
whether caste factor matters or all social categories are equally vulnerable is an under-
researched question. This paper makes an attempt to throw light on this aspect. On the
whole, the objective of the paper is to examine within the slum clusters the importance of
caste in making decision to migrate, accessing relatively better jobs and attaining better
health outcomes (reference period being 1 year preceding the date of survey). The
organization of the study is as follows. In the present section, we offer analytical frame-
work and towards the end of this section, we outline the sampling framework used in

*Corresponding author. Email: arup@iegindia.org

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 Urban Research & Practice 157

collecting information on social, demographic and economic attributes of the population

from slum households in four Indian cities. Section 2 based on bivariate tables delineates
patterns relating to duration of migration, caste, education and livelihood within the slum
clusters. Section 3 presents the econometric analysis of occupational choice, earnings and
health status of migrants of different durations and caste backgrounds in city-slums and
finally, Section 4 summarises the major findings.
Many among the earlier studies in the area of migration and urban poverty argued that
the disadvantaged (social) classes usually get uprooted from the rural areas and strive hard
in an alien urban situation to access livelihood sources. In this sense, urban poverty is a
reflection of rural poverty (Dandekar and Rath 1971; Singh and D’Souza 1980). But, in an
anonymous urban space, the caste factor is usually expected to get blurred and, hence,
caste-based occupations which might have been pursued in the rural set-up prior to
migration may change significantly, implying availability of jobs in the urban labour
market being independent of caste. Similarly non-availability of jobs may also cut across
castes. But in such a situation, what individuals from different caste background pursue is
an important line of research. Do they then return to their caste-based activities in the
urban set-up in an attempt to earn a livelihood, or the residual (supply-push) absorption of
labour becomes a complete random phenomenon, suggesting equal probability of locating
individuals of every caste background in a given set of activities? From another angle,
even within the informal sector, some of the activities may require certain specific type of
skill or experience and, thus, the concentration of certain castes in certain activities need
not be interpreted always as a phenomenon of social discrimination.
The literature on caste and occupations is vast and varied (Kannapan 1985). While
one class of studies tends to suggest the erosion of the caste base in the process of
development both in the rural and urban areas, the other line of research exemplifies
the dominance of the caste factor in every sphere. Thus, human capital formation,
sources of livelihood and well-being may be expected to move along the caste lines. It
is often argued that in India, the underemployed and poor mostly belong to the lower
castes –scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs). Social seclusion is said to
have led to economic deprivation. Hence, the essence of the government policy in an
attempt to reduce poverty and rehabilitate the poor rested on the reservation policy
since independence. Social integration was to be achieved through availability of
education and employment opportunities to the lower castes. The Mandal
Commission (1990) reinforced these issues by including other backward castes
(OBCs) as beneficiaries. However, even after pursuing the reservation policy for
more than five decades, the percentage of population below and marginally above
the poverty line is not negligible (Thorat 1993). Is it not then unrealistic to assume that
poor do not belong to higher castes also, and that economic upliftment can be attained
purely on the basis of caste? The functioning of the rural labour market is largely caste
based, but that is expected to get blurred in the context of an urban job market (Mitra
2006). In other words, urbanization follows and results in commercialization, which in
turn is likely to erode the influence of caste factor in the job market, although the job
seekers may access information pertaining to the urban labour market on the basis of
caste and kinship bonds (Banerjee 1986; Desai 1984; Mitra 2003).
Mitra (1988) examined the issue of castes in city-slums and noted that the disadvan-
taged castes had migrated to the cities from the rural areas either recently or decades back
through caste, kinship and village networks. However, the existence of other castes in
slums due to the shortage of housing, i.e. the phenomenon of downward social mobility,
certainly cannot be overlooked.
158 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

However, some of the findings from other studies note that despite the dissociation
between caste and traditional occupations, large sections of ‘lower’ and artisan castes are
concentrated in unskilled or low-paid semi-skilled occupations in the informal sectors
(Breman 1990, 1993; Kumar 2008). Available evidence suggests that although urban and
industrial occupations and professions have attracted members of diverse castes, here too
certain castes tend to be concentrated in specific occupations. Deshpande (2003) calcu-
lated the poverty–caste relationship on the basis of the National Sample Survey
Organisation consumption data, which reinforces the strong relationship between low-
caste status and poverty. Though Kumar, Kumar and Mitra (2009) did not find the well-
being index to be significantly higher for those belonging to higher caste categories in the
slums, there was indeed a pattern confirming better outcomes for them in terms of
economic, cultural, health and education-specific factors. The finding was confined to
the slum households only, which in a sense were highly homogeneous; hence, it was not
surprising that the higher castes were not significantly better off in comparison to the
lower castes.
These issues of social and economic inequality need to be studied in a more compre-
hensive manner, which the present study addresses itself to. Using the slum survey data,
we wish to examine whether certain caste groups are more prone to migration and whether
the probability of joining certain specific occupations increases with the prominence of a
particular caste group. On the whole, this paper makes an attempt to bring out the
similarities/dissimilarities in livelihood patterns and incomes of migrants of different
caste groups within the low income clusters. While some of the studies in the past looked
into the caste-occupation constellation at the societal level, within the low income ghettos
whether caste factor matters in influencing the migration decision, accessing relatively
higher income jobs and experiencing better health outcomes need to be reflected upon.
Within the set of economically weaker sections whether social backwardness makes
additions to disadvantages is a pertinent question.

Survey design and data

The survey of slum households was carried out in 2006–2007 in four cities in India, based
on a three-stage stratified random sampling technique. It was sponsored by UNDP and
Government of India under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
programme to alleviate urban poverty and it was carried out by the institute at which
the second author is based. The steps involved in the survey design are as follows:
First, each city was divided into several administrative districts or zones and the slum
clusters (notified) – the list of which was obtained from the city municipality – were
distributed across these zones: Z(i)s, i = 1, 2,. . ..
Second, 30 clusters were selected from these zones on the basis of random draw, using
the proportion of the number of clusters in each zone to the total clusters as weight: 30
× C(i)/ΣC(i), where C(i) is the number of clusters in zone Z(i).
Finally, 500 households from each city were selected from these clusters on the basis
of random draw, using the ratio of the number of households in each cluster to the total
number of households in 30 clusters as weight: 500 × N(j)/ΣN(j), where N(j) is the number
of households in cluster j = 1, 2, . . . 30.
The survey was carried out on the basis of a detailed questionnaire with the help of the
research investigators. The household head or some other adult member of the household
answered the questions on behalf of the children and other household members who were
not available during the interview. The main difficulty encountered by the investigators’
 Urban Research & Practice 159

team was the unavailability of the adult members at the daytime as they were mostly
engaged in remunerative and/or household activity. Therefore, the time for the interview
had to be fixed as per the convenience of the interviewees. Besides, the longish nature of
the questionnaire and illiteracy of some of the interviewees did cause difficulties at times
in completing the interviews. The other problem relates to the translation of the ques-
tionnaire into the local language. To overcome some of these problems, a thorough
training was imparted to the investigators. The survey instrument included a number of
questions relating to migration, past and present occupation, income and networks used
for accessing job market information. Besides, the living conditions, availability of basic
amenities, health status and the details regarding consumption expenditure were also
delineated.
The four cities included in the survey are diverse in nature. For example, Ludhiana is
an industrial city while Jaipur is a state capital and has the predominance of services apart
from being a tourist spot and hub of certain manufacturing activities. Both of them are
million plus cities as per the 2011 census. On the other hand, Mathura and Ujjain are both
religious centres though they are of different sizes. Mathura is a relatively large city while
Ujjain is small in size – however, both like the other two belong to the category of class 1
cities, i.e. each with a population of 100,000 and above. The dynamic industrial cities are
expected to be socially more advanced with less dominance of caste-based activities.
Similar outcomes may prevail in cosmopolitan centres. On the other hand, the religious
cities, particularly the small ones, are likely to be highly traditional though the scale effect
may neutralize the stance.

2. Broad patterns
The relative size of short duration migrants is uniformly low in all the four cities and
across all the social categories. The incidence of migration defined even on the basis of a
reasonably long-time frame (20 years) is less than 20% of the total sample households of
slums in Jaipur and Ujjain, whereas in Ludhiana and Mathura, the corresponding figure is
around 30%. Ludhiana is an industrial city and hence, a relatively higher rate of migration
due to economic reasons is not unexpected. However, Mathura probably draws migrants
from the poorer regions of different adjoining states due to push factors (Table 1).
The migration pattern tends to differ across social categories – the four social
categories considered in the paper are general (GEN), OBCs, SCs and STs. In the caste
hierarchy, the GEN category is at the top followed by the OBCs. At the bottom, we have
the SCs and the STs.
In Ludhiana, OBCs reported a migration rate of as high as 43%. In Jaipur SCs, in
Mathura both GEN and OBCs and in Ujjain the GEN category showed a relatively higher
migration rate. Hence, any generalization in this respect may be erroneous at this stage
though socially better-off classes seem to have a higher propensity to migrate. We try to
explain a migration function later in the text.
It may be noted from Table 2 that the single-member households among the migrants
is thinly present though the popular belief is that a large proportion of the migrants move
without families. This is may be true at the early stage of migration but subsequently as
the earning member tends to settle down, the family joins at the place of destination.
However, we may not be in a position to refute altogether the view that a substantial part
of the migrants in a given city at any point in time constitute single members precisely
because our sample comes from the notified or registered slums. This type of slums is
quite stable in nature in the sense their existence in the city can be traced to remote past.
160 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

Table 1. Social categories by their migration status and duration of migration (individual cities and
four cities combined).

Duration of migration

Social Total Less than 1– 4– 10– Non-

categories population 1 year 4 years 9 years 19 years migration Total

Jaipur
GEN 1227 0.2 3.7 4.6 6.5 84.9 100
OBC 1012 0.0 2.4 4.5 5.3 87.7 100
SC 547 0.0 2.9 4.8 9.7 82.6 100
ST 173 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.8 92.5 100
Total 2959 0.1 2.9 4.4 6.7 85.9 100
Ludhiana
GEN 990 1.5 6.8 8.8 10.6 72.3 100
OBC 614 3.1 10.9 11.7 16.8 57.5 100
SC 754 2.0 5.4 7.7 11.8 73.1 100
ST 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 100
Total 2368 2.1 7.4 9.2 12.6 68.8 100
Mathura
GEN 973 1.7 6.0 6.5 15.6 70.2 100
OBC 1297 1.6 5.9 9.6 10.9 71.9 100
SC 619 0.2 4.0 7.1 7.9 80.8 100
ST 35 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 97.1 100
Total 2924 1.3 5.4 8.0 11.7 73.5 100
Ujjain
GEN 387 0.5 2.8 5.7 9.3 81.7 100
OBC 971 0.6 4.3 3.8 5.8 85.5 100
SC 1137 0.2 2.6 5.1 7.5 84.6 100
ST 23 0.0 4.3 8.7 0.0 87.0 100
Total 2518 0.4 3.3 4.7 7.0 84.5 100
All city
GEN 3577 1.0 5.1 6.4 10.4 77.1 100
OBC 3894 1.2 5.4 7.2 9.1 77.1 100
SC 3057 0.6 3.7 6.1 9.0 80.6 100
ST 241 0.0 0.4 2.5 5.0 92.1 100
Total 10,769 0.9 4.7 6.5 9.4 78.4 100
Note: Non-migrants are those who have been staying at the place of destination for last 20 years and above.
The four social categories are as follows: general (GEN), other backward castes (OBCs), scheduled castes (SCs)
and scheduled tribes (STs).
Source: UNDP-GOI Project, 2006–2007.

Table 2. Social categories, migrants and household size.

Household size

Social categories of migrants 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

GEN 0.5 4.7 12.3 19.2 18.9 44.5 100

OBC 0.2 4.3 5.3 15.4 22.1 52.7 100
SC 0.6 3.1 7.5 19.0 18.3 51.5 100
ST 0.0 0.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 60.0 100
Total 0.4 4.1 8.3 17.6 20.0 49.6 100
Source: See Table 2.
All cities combined.
GEN: General; SC: scheduled castes; ST: scheduled tribe; OBC: other backward caste.
 Urban Research & Practice 161

Perhaps, the single-member migrant households are not able to secure an entry to these
types of slums in the initial stages and by the time they actually enter such clusters, their
family may have already joined them. In order to capture the temporary migrants and their
socio-economic characteristics, the squatter settlements and other unauthorized dwelling
space need to be covered in the survey. However, information was not available on an
exhaustive list of such areas in the cities without which it was difficult to design the
survey. The qualitative studies however confirm that the low-caste labour population who
do not own adequate land and work in others’ farm as landless labourers in the rural areas
are exposed to higher degrees of irregularity in employment compared to higher castes.
Thus, seasonal migration claims a greater incidence among the lower castes though the
national rural employment guarantee programme seems to have reduced the seasonal
migration to the urban areas in search of temporary jobs (Jean and Khera 2009). In fact,
lower castes and many tribal groups resort to seasonal and temporary migration for their
livelihood. Since our survey did not capture the unregistered slum population and focused
only on those recognized by the city authorities, a relatively higher incidence of migration
among the lower caste and tribal population is not evident. Possibly, they do not even try
to seek an entry to these clusters. For their short stay in the urban areas, the unauthorized
localities/clusters are adequate.

Nature of work performed by migrants and non-migrants: across caste categories

In this section, we compare the employment structure among the migrants and the non-
migrants across various caste categories within the slums. Usually, the migration studies
highlight the differences in the employment composition of the migrants and the non-
migrants at the place of destination and evaluate if migration is associated with higher
pay-offs (Banerjee 1986). However, it is pertinent to look at the data caste wise as the
lower castes among the migrants and the non-migrants both might have been at the lower
ends. Table 3 reveals that among the migrants in Jaipur, it is casual employment and in
Ludhiana, it is regular wage employment which accounted for the highest proportion
across all the social categories (Table 3).1 However, in Mathura, regular wage employ-
ment among the GEN category, self-employment among the OBCs and casual employ-
ment among the SCs comprise a relatively larger share. In Ujjain, regular wage
employment among the GEN category and casual employment among the OBCs and
SCs are on the top. On the whole, except in Jaipur, the migrant GEN category workers
correspond to a relatively larger size of regular wage employment compared to the other
two social categories, suggesting positive association between better quality employment
and higher caste status.
The non-migrants on the other hand unfold a different pattern (Table 3). In Jaipur,
casual employment among the GEN and OBCs and regular wage employment among the
SCs; in Ludhiana, self-employment among the GEN and regular wage employment
among the OBCs and SCs; in Mathura, regular employment among the GEN, self-
employment among the OBCs and casual employment among the SCs and in Ujjain,
casual employment among all the three social categories are dominant. Hence, it is not
straight forward to suggest that the non-migrant low-caste households are invariably
worse off compared to their higher caste counterparts. The type and size of cities do
not seem to be having any bearing in this respect.
If we compare the shares across various caste categories, GEN migrant workers have
the highest percentage of regular wage employment, the most valued job, in Mathura and
Ujjain. On the other hand, in Jaipur and Ludhiana, the dynamic cities, the OBCs and the
162 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

Table 3. Migrants, non-migrants and nature of employment by social categories.

Scat GEN OBC SC Total

Jaipur Casual 41.33 45.65 37.25 41.14

Regular 30.67 34.78 33.33 33.14
Self-emp. 28.00 19.57 29.41 25.71
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Ludhiana Casual 18.90 29.17 23.00 23.56
Regular 52.76 41.67 65.00 52.30
Self-emp. 28.35 29.17 12.00 24.14
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Mathura Casual 29.27 27.68 59.38 54.24
Regular 47.56 33.93 28.13 20.90
Self-emp. 23.17 38.39 12.50 24.86
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Ujjain Casual 33.33 64.06 54.22 54.24
Regular 40.00 10.94 21.69 20.90
Self-emp. 26.67 25.00 24.10 24.86
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
All city Casual 28.34 37.43 39.85 34.99
Regular 44.90 32.46 40.98 39.20
Self-emp. 26.75 30.12 19.17 25.81
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Non-migrants
Jaipur Casual 41.03 46.04 37.58 40.99
Regular 34.35 27.34 45.86 35.06
Self–emp. 24.62 26.62 16.56 23.95
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Ludhiana Casual 16.30 13.73 25.44 18.80
Regular 34.80 48.04 49.11 42.40
Self-emp. 48.90 38.24 25.44 38.80
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Mathura Casual 29.27 27.68 59.38 32.74
Regular 47.56 33.93 28.13 38.05
Self-emp. 23.17 38.39 12.50 29.20
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Ujjain Casual 50.83 54.14 60.96 56.87
Regular 28.33 25.44 23.03 24.79
Self-emp. 20.83 20.41 16.01 18.35
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
All city Casual 31.99 42.74 45.82 39.94
Regular 32.68 27.59 35.75 32.15
Self-emp. 35.33 29.68 18.43 27.91
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Note and source: see Table 2.
GEN: General; SC: scheduled castes; OBC: other backward caste.

SCs respectively correspond to higher proportions of workers in regular wage employ-

ment than others. A similar pattern is also evident in the case of non-migrants. Mathura
and Ujjain reported a relatively higher percentage of regular wage employment among the
GEN categories compared to others. In Ludhiana, both OBCs and SCs reported the
highest share of regular wage employment and in Jaipur, the share of regular wage
employment among the SCs is highest among all the three social categories. Hence, it
is evident that the dynamic cities tend to benefit the lower social categories – whether
 Urban Research & Practice 163

migrant or non-migrant – to a greater extent in comparison to the stagnant cities. Rapid

growth and agglomeration benefits seem to be caste neutral as urbanism follows at a faster
pace in large urban centres, whereas in stagnant and small urban localities, the caste biases
and the lack of social transformations remain prevalent in the absence of economic
growth.
Accessing job market information through networks has been a matter of serious
concern in the literature. Those who are not able to diversify networks and keep pursuing
the familial and caste-based ties to access jobs remain stagnant without experiencing
upward mobility in the long run. The low-caste population is seen to be at the greatest
disadvantage compared to the higher caste counterparts because the latter could diversify
their networks more frequently and pursue better strategies for job search in the labour
market (Mitra 2010). Given these observations from the earlier studies, we examine the
networks used in different occupations by the migrant and non-migrant population of
different caste categories within the slums. The use of traditional networks tends to change
across employment type, caste categories and cities (table not included). As far as the
migrants are concerned, the casual workers among the GEN and OBCs and the regular
wage workers among the SCs used networks to a greater extent in Jaipur. In Ludhiana, the
regular wage workers across all social categories reported a relatively larger use of
networks. However, in stagnant cities like Mathura and Ujjain, regular workers from
GEN category, self-employed from OBCs and regular and casual workers from the SC
category used networks relatively more than others.
This pattern is not the same among the non-migrant workers. Casual and regular wage
workers from GEN category, casual OBC workers and regular wage SC workers in Jaipur;
self-employed workers from GEN category and regular wage workers from OBC and SC
households in Ludhiana; self-employed workers from GEN category, self-employed and
casual workers both from OBC background and regular SC workers in Mathura; and
casual workers from GEN and OBC background and regular wage workers from SC
households in Ujjain used networks comparatively more than the others.
This means that the migrant and non-migrant behaviour in terms of pursuing networks
for job search is different. Also, across caste categories and types of cities, the use of
networks tends to vary. Not necessarily the high valued jobs such as regular wage
employment are accessed through networks; even for casual jobs, networks are used.
Since the dynamic cities have been attracting migrants since long, the network effects
could be more prevalent compared to the stagnant cities. Any type of theorization does not
seem to be forthcoming from the tabular analysis, which prompts us to pursue econo-
metric exercises in the subsequent section.

3. Econometric analysis
In this section, first of all we have tried to explain in a logit framework what induces or
discourages the probability to migrate to the urban slums. After controlling for relevant
variables, we try to assess if caste still matters within the broad context of slums, which
are largely occupied by the low income households. The dependent variable is a dummy
capturing migrants (those who moved into the city over a period of less than 10 years) and
non-migrants, characterized in terms of 1 and 0, respectively (Table 4). The findings
confirm that regular wage employment raises the probability to migrate compared to self-
employment or casual wage employment. GEN and OBCs show a higher probability to
migrate in comparison to the SCs and the STs. Relative to Ujjain (comparison category),
Mathura does not show a different propensity to migrate. In this sense, the stagnant cities
164 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

Table 4. Probability to migrate (binomial logit) with marginal effects.

Dep var: mig Coeff. z-Ratio dy/dx z-Ratio

EMP1 0.228 1.58 0.010 1.47

EMP2 0.489 3.17** 0.024 2.69
SOC1 1.058 1.78* 0.054 1.47
SOC2 1.318 2.23** 0.068 1.79
SOC3 0.885 1.49 0.044 1.24
CITY1 −1.286 −7.39** −0.044 −9.3
CITY2 0.445 3.58** 0.021 3.17
CITY3 0.152 1.24 0.007 1.2
EDU1 0.846 4.71** 0.044 3.87
EDU2 0.513 3.07** 0.024 2.76
EDU3 0.900 5.27** 0.050 4.13
EDU4 0.737 3.63** 0.041 2.83
NET1 −0.015 −0.07 −0.001 −0.07
NET2 0.178 0.51 0.008 0.47
Hhsize −0.002 −0.1 0.000 −0.1
Age 0.092 2.43 0.004 2.43
Gender −0.904 −8.77** −0.040 −8.29
Constant −4.319 −6.96
Note: No. of observation = 8996; chi2 (17) = 347.3; **,*denote significance at 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
EMP1: Casual; EMP2: regular; SOC1: general; SOC2: OBCs; SOC3: SCs; CITY1: Jaipur; CITY2: Ludhiana;
CITY3: Mathura; MIG1: less than 1 year; MIG2: 1–4 years; MIG3: 5–9 years; EDU1: illiterate; EDU2: primary;
EDU3: middle; EDU4: secondary (ref. cate. graduation and above); NET1: networks through family members;
NET2: network through relatives; Hhsz: household size; Age: age of the principal earner; Gender: gender dummy
(female = 0 and male = 1).

tend to share a similar migration pattern. On the other hand, Ludhiana unravels a higher
propensity to migrate which is as per expectation for the dynamic and industrial cities.
Jaipur on the other hand shows a lower migration propensity, in spite of being a million
plus city. Space constraint and overcrowding in this city which is a state capital must have
held less prospects for migrants, discouraging them to move in.
What is most startling is that the illiterates and those with primary, middle and
secondary level of education are more likely to migrate than the graduates or those with
a higher level of education. Those with less education are more vulnerable in a rural set-
up and, thus in search of jobs, they are more likely to migrate out. With age, the
probability to migrate increases. Further, women are more likely to migrate compared
to the males possibly because of marriage and other social reasons.
Turning to occupational choice model, two sets have been estimated: one with a
distinction between migrants of different durations (non-migrants being the base category)
along with different social categories (STs being the base category), and the other with a
distinction between migrants from GEN category, migrants who are OBCs, migrant
belonging to SCs, non-migrants from GEN category, non-migrants who are OBCs and
non-migrants belonging to SCs – the migrants from GEN category being taken as the
comparison group. We have controlled for several other variables such as education, age,
household size, gender, networks and house asset at the place of origin.
In most of the occupations, the GEN, OBCs and SCs show a lower probability of
being absorbed compared to the STs (model 1, Table A1 in the appendix). Also, the short
duration migrants have a lower probability relative to the non-migrants or the medium and
long duration migrants. But from the second model (model 2, Table A2 in the appendix)
 Urban Research & Practice 165

of occupational choice, it is evident that migrant SCs, and the non-migrants across
different social categories, have a lower probability of joining the relatively better jobs,
indicating migrant GEN and OBCs to be better off.

Present income and health outcome functions

Within the broad homogeneous group of slum dwellers, whether caste matters in acces-
sing relatively better jobs and higher incomes is an important research question. The
overall findings (from Table A3 in the appendix) suggest that the casual and regular wage
workers tend to earn a lower wage rate as compared to the self-employed. All the three
cities offer better earnings than Ujjain, confirming the positive scale effect.
The short duration migrants are worse off in terms of earnings. GEN and OBCs are
seen to be earning less than the ST workers and the difference between SCs and STs is not
statistically significant. However, as we change the specification to differentiate between
migrants and non-migrants across various caste dimensions, the migrant OBCs, migrant
SCs, non-migrant GEN and non-migrant OBCs tend to earn less than the migrant GEN
category workers. Migrant GEN category workers seem to be well informed and well
prepared for the urban job market. Even compared to their non-migrant counterparts, they
are better endowed. Hence, we may conclude, when both caste and migration dimensions
are combined, at the lower echelons migration does pay if the worker is better off in terms
of caste status. This may suggest that the GEN category population in the rural areas is
usually better endowed with resources and education; hence, when some of them decide
to migrate, they are better placed in the urban job market. Even the non-migrant GEN
category workers are not as motivated as the migrant GEN category workers are; thus, the
former is worse off in terms of earnings.
Since income may not have been reported accurately, health outcome is considered to
be a better indicator of well-being. Health outcome of the individuals (with a reference
period of 1 year preceding the date of survey) is conceptualized in terms of a binomial
logit model: 0 for not falling ill and 1 for those who fell ill. Findings (from Table A4 in
the appendix) suggest that the casual workers in GEN show a higher probability of falling
ill compared to the self-employed and regular wage workers. Mathura slums show a lower
probability of falling ill compared to the slum-clusters in other three cities. The illiterates
show a higher probability of falling ill though it is not statistically significant. The caste
and migration dimensions are not significant suggesting that the entire slum population is
almost equally vulnerable in terms of health outcomes. Only the migrant SCs and non-
migrant SCs show a bit lower probability of falling ill in comparison to the migrant GEN
category. The probability of illness falls with household size. Though this may appear
counter-intuitive, in large households, the dependants are able to take better care of the
rest of the members which reduces the probability of falling ill. It is also evident that
children in slums are more susceptible to illness compared to the elders.

4. Conclusion
Migration of lower and disadvantaged castes to the urban labour market and their residual
absorption in the low productivity informal sector were seen in the past as the major cause
of urban poverty. In other words, urban poverty was taken as a reflection of rural poverty,
suggesting that implementation of rural development programmes could reduce urban
poverty significantly. In the backdrop of this view, the present paper based on a primary
survey of slum households in four Indian cities made an attempt to examine the migration
166 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

pattern across caste categories and the relationship between workers of different caste
background and their access to livelihood opportunities at the place of destination.
Though studies looked into the migration–caste–occupation dimension in the past, within
a broadly homogeneous context of low income clusters, whether caste plays an important
role in relation to migration, jobs and incomes and other indicators of well-being such as
health outcomes is an important research question.
Findings tend to suggest that the overlaps between social and economic status are of
considerable significance which are indeed manifested in terms of a higher propensity to
migrate in the case of GEN category of population and OBCs in comparison to the SCs
and STs. Those from higher caste groups seem to have better endowments required for
absorption in the urban labour market. Also, the costs of migration are possibly easy for
them to bear compared to those from disadvantaged castes. From the occupational choice
model, it is again evident that migrant from lower castes (SCs) and the non-migrants
across different social categories have a lower probability of joining the relatively better
jobs, indicating that migrants from higher castes are better off in the urban job market.
These findings are quite different from what is implied in the light of the ‘over-urbaniza-
tion’ thesis, suggesting that the rural destitute would reveal the highest probability to
migrate in order to escape poverty.
Cities which are dynamic in nature unravel higher rates of migration though over-
crowding and congestion tend to reduce the population in flow. In this sense, Jaipur being
the largest city among the four showed a lower propensity to migrate among the slum
dwellers compared to their counterparts in Ujjain which is the smallest of all. Mathura and
Ujjain both share similar propensity to migrate as both are stagnant religious cities.
However, all the three relatively large cities offer better earnings than Ujjain, confirming
the positive scale effect. Migrant and non-migrant behaviour in terms of pursuing net-
works for job search is different. Also, across caste categories and types of cities, the use
of networks tends to vary. Not necessarily the high valued jobs such as regular wage
employment are accessed through networks; even for casual jobs networks are used.
Also, our findings suggest that the higher caste migrants correspond to a better earning
profile. As we differentiate between migrants and non-migrants across various caste
dimensions, the migrants among OBCs and SCs and non-migrants among GEN category
and OBCs tend to earn less than the migrant workers from higher castes. The latter seem
to be well informed about and well prepared for the urban job market. Even compared to
their non-migrant counterparts, they are better endowed. Hence, we may conclude that at
the lower echelons, mobility does pay if the worker is better off in terms of caste status.
However, as it comes to well-being conceptualized mainly in terms of health outcomes, all
categories of population seem to be equally vulnerable. This is understandable as slum
clusters are often characterized by inadequate basic amenities and the inhabitants reside in
inhuman living conditions. It is also evident that the dynamic cities tend to benefit the
lower social categories – whether migrant or non-migrant – to a greater extent in
comparison to the stagnant cities. Rapid growth and agglomeration benefits seem to be
caste neutral as urbanism follows at a faster pace in large urban centres, whereas in
stagnant and small urban localities, the caste biases and the lack of social transformations
remain prevalent in the absence of economic growth.
On the whole, even within the universe of a broadly homogeneous group of city-
slums, the paper perceives a positive association between migration and improvement
in livelihood opportunities among those who are socially better off. Though the results
are based on slum survey, comprising mostly the low income households, the findings
confirm that among them those who belong to higher castes are economically better
 Urban Research & Practice 167

off. The disadvantaged castes are not even in a position to take the benefits of
migration as they are either unable to bear the cost of migration or are unlikely to
get absorbed in the urban labour market in relatively better jobs. This reflects on the
importance of special programmes which can help reduce the vulnerability of the
disadvantaged castes by providing improved access to livelihood opportunities. On
the other hand, the dynamics of urban poverty needs to be viewed beyond migration,
particularly in terms of those who have been residing in the urban areas for a long time
and are treated as natives. Though the earlier studies have already established that
higher castes have more propensity to migrate compared to lower castes, this paper
tries to examine it in the context of urban slums which in a sense form a homogeneous
group of low income households. Within these clusters whether caste still plays a role
is an important question from policy point of view. For example, within these so-called
low income households, if caste-based policies are pursued without any quantitative
back-up, it will only infuriate social unrest and caste wars. From this point of view, the
present paper throws light on a contentious issue.

Note
1. In Table 3, we have not mentioned the figures for scheduled tribes separately since this category
comprises only a few workers.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
S. Chandrasekhar http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4790-0869

References
Mitra, A. 1988. “Spread of Slums: The Rural Spill Over?” Demography India 17: 1.
Banerjee, B. 1986. Rural to Urban Migration and the Urban Labour Market: A Case Study of
Delhi. Bombay: Himalaya Pub. House.
Beteille, A. 1969. “Caste in a South Indian Village.” In Social Inequality, edited by A. Beteille.
Penguin Books.
Breman, J. 1990. “Even Dogs are Better Off: The Ongoing Battle between Capital and Labour in the
Cane Fields of Gujarat.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 17: 546–608. doi:10.1080/
03066159008438436.
Breman, J. 1993. Beyond Patronage and Exploitation. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Dandekar, V. M., and N. Rath. 1971. Poverty in India. Pune: Indian School of Political Economy.
Desai, I. P. 1984. “Should Caste Be the Basis for Recognizing Backwardness?” Economic and
Political Weekly 19.
Deshpande, S. 2003. “Caste Inequality and Indian Sociology: Notes on Questions of Disciplinary
Location.” In The Changing Contours of the Discipline, edited by M. Chaudhuri. New Delhi:
Orient Longman.
Jean, D., and R. Khera. 2009. “The Battle for Employment Guarantee.” Frontline 26 (1): 03–16.
Kannapan, S. 1985. “Urban Employment and the Labour Market in Developing Nations.” Economic
Development and Cultural Change 33 (4). doi:10.1086/451491.
Kumar, R., S. Kumar, and A. Mitra. 2009. Social and Economic Inequalities: Contemporary
Significance of Caste in India. Economic & Political Weekly xliv (50): 55–63.
168 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

Kumar, S. 2008. “Strategic Transformation in Lower Caste Labour in Western Uttar Pradesh.”
Presented at Seventh International Conference of the Association of Indian Labour Historians,
Noida, India.
Mitra, A. 2010. “Migration, Livelihood and Well-Being: Evidence from Indian City-Slums.” Urban
Studies 47 (7): 1371–1390. doi:10.1177/0042098009353621.
Mitra, A. 2003. Occupational Choices, Networks and Transfers: An Exegesis Based on Micro Data
from Delhi Slums. Delhi: Manohar Publishers.
Mitra, A. 2006. “Labour Market Mobility of Low Income Households.” Economic and Political
Weekly, May 27.
Shah, A. M. 2007. “Caste in the 21st Century: From System to Elements.” Economic & Political
Weekly 42: 109–116.
Singh, A. M., and A. D’Souza. 1980. The Urban Poor: Slum and Pavement Dwellers in the Major
Cities of India. Delhi: Manohar Publishers.
Thorat, S. 1993. “Economic Development Policies and Change: Emerging Status of Scheduled
Castes after Independence.” Paper presented at the Seminar on Social Composition of Limited
Elite, Centre for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, New Delhi, Jawaharlal
Nehru University.
 Urban Research & Practice 169

Appendix

Table A1. Marginal effects from multinomial logit model 1.

Manufacturing and Commercial and
Semi-professional Sales and trade repair security Transport

Explanatory Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar.

var. effect z effect z effect z effect z effect z

SOC1 −0.053 −1.91* −0.054 −1.92* −0.042 −2.89** −0.046 −1.67* −0.079 −1.44
SOC2 −0.063 −2.35** −0.062 −2.38** −0.052 −3.34** −0.057 −2.06** −0.082 −1.91*
SOC3 −0.055 −2.31** −0.049 −2.36** −0.068 −2.56** −0.046 −1.85* −0.070 −1.65*
CITY1 0.011 0.35 0.008 0.31 0.015 1.16 0.010 0.27 0.009 0.16
CITY2 −0.002 −0.16 −0.004 −0.33 −0.004 −0.31 −0.001 −0.07 −0.004 −0.24
CITY3 −0.001 −0.06 −0.003 −0.15 −0.005 −0.36 0.002 0.08 −0.004 −0.12
MIG1 −0.051 −1.81* −0.048 −1.80* −0.043 −1.53 −0.046 −1.86* −0.069 −1.82*
MIG2 0.006 0.21 0.006 0.22 0.007 0.30 0.004 0.18 0.006 0.15
MIG3 −0.016 −0.89 −0.015 −0.90 −0.015 −0.91 −0.015 −0.93 −0.022 −0.90
EDU1 −0.150 −3.86** −0.136 −4.04* −0.208 −9.59** −0.131 −3.05** −0.128 −2.27**
EDU2 −0.127 −3.44** −0.126 −3.70* −0.111 −9.42** −0.114 −2.75** −0.160 −2.38**
EDU3 −0.101 −3.39** −0.095 −3.61* −0.084 −9.00** −0.097 −2.75** −0.144 −2.50**
EDU4 −0.068 −3.38** −0.063 −3.61* −0.060 −7.77** −0.060 −2.71** −0.092 −2.56**
NET1 −0.019 −1.26 −0.019 −1.30 −0.015 −1.49 −0.019 −1.16 −0.028 −1.01
NET2 0.052 1.33 0.048 1.35 0.045 1.77 0.046 1.19 0.064 1.09
HOME 0.006 0.39 0.006 0.40 0.007 0.53 0.004 0.28 0.007 0.31
Hhsize −0.001 −0.24 −0.001 −0.28 0.000 0.02 −0.001 −0.24 −0.001 −0.22
Age 0.014 1.40 0.013 1.45 0.012 2.28** 0.014 1.21 0.018 1.00
Gender −0.003 −0.08 −0.002 −0.07 −0.002 −0.21 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00

Tailoring Construction Labour Others

Mar. z Mar. z Mar. z Mar. z

effect effect effect effect

−0.050 −2.56** −0.057 −1.68* −0.049 −1.98** −0.027 −2.02**

−0.060 −2.95** −0.066 −2.12** −0.062 −2.36** −0.034 −2.25**
−0.047 −3.27** −0.046 −1.78* −0.051 −2.71** −0.041 −2.18**
0.006 0.43 0.002 0.07 0.011 0.5 0.016 0.51
−0.005 −0.44 −0.011 −0.73 −0.007 −0.54 0.013 1.03
−0.007 −0.55 −0.005 −0.26 −0.007 −0.43 0.008 0.46
−0.042 −1.69* −0.048 −1.74* −0.044 −1.7* −0.034 −2.09**
0.006 0.27 0.002 0.08 0.006 0.26 0.002 0.14
−0.014 −0.88 −0.018 −1.04 −0.014 −0.85 −0.010 −0.8
−0.146 −7.84** −0.112 −3.18** −0.127 −3.74** −0.148 −4.2**
−0.113 −6.87** −0.133 −3.09** −0.136 −3.61** −0.089 −3.67**
−0.080 −6.52** −0.104 −3.02** −0.092 −3.44** −0.071 −3.59**
−0.058 −6.1** −0.066 −3.08** −0.058 −3.38** −0.046 −3.45**
−0.014 −1.37 −0.024 −1.28 −0.015 −1.16 −0.007 −0.87
0.049 1.68* 0.047 1.24 0.050 1.34 0.045 1.45
0.007 0.54 0.001 0.08 0.006 0.44 0.005 0.53
0.000 −0.29 −0.001 −0.3 0.000 −0.23 0.000 0.16
0.011 1.98** 0.014 1.26 0.011 1.38 0.010 1.65*
−0.006 −0.27 0.007 0.29 −0.006 −0.14 −0.005 −0.24

Note: Chi2 (171) = 2031.59; no. of observations = 3593; **,*denote significance at 5% and 10% levels,
respectively.
SOC1: General; SOC2: OBCs; SOC3: SCs; CITY1: Jaipur; CITY2: Ludhiana; CITY1 = Jaipur;
CITY2: Ludhiana; CITY3: Mathura; MIG1: less than 1 year; MIG2: 1–4 years; MIG3: 5–9 years;
EDU1: illiterate; EDU2: primary; EDU3: middle; EDU4: secondary (reference category: graduation and
above); NET1: networks through family members; NET2: network through relatives; HOME: house asset at
the place of origin; Hhsz: household size; Age: age of the principal earner; Gender: gender dummy (female = 0
and male = 1).
170 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

Table A2. Marginal effect from multinomial logit model 2.

Manufacturing and Commercial and
Semi-professional Sales and trade repair security Transport

Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar.

Variable effect z effect z effect z effect z effect z

CITY1 0.014 0.98 0.011 0.84 0.018 1.35 0.014 1.01 0.013 0.66
CITY2 −0.002 −0.15 −0.004 −0.32 −0.004 −0.33 0.000 −0.02 −0.004 −0.24
CITY3 −0.002 −0.12 −0.003 −0.22 −0.005 −0.39 0.002 0.13 −0.005 −0.27
MIGOBC −0.028 −1.45 −0.027 −1.51 −0.025 −1.39 −0.023 −1.32 −0.039 −1.46
MIGSC −0.051 −3.38** −0.046 −3.17** −0.050 −3.75** −0.046 −3.49** −0.066 −2.96**
Non-MIGGEN −0.027 −1.72* −0.026 −1.72* −0.021 −1.52 −0.023 −1.71* −0.037 −1.67*
Non-MIGOBC −0.036 −2.29** −0.035 −2.28* −0.031 −2.28** −0.032 −2.18** −0.048 −2.3**
Non-MIGSC −0.026 −1.65* −0.023 −1.58 −0.032 −1.77* −0.021 −1.55 −0.031 −1.36
EDU1 −0.151 −13.77** −0.136 −13.9** −0.214 −9.7** −0.128 −11.52 −0.134 −14.2**
EDU2 −0.128 −13.48** −0.126 −13.39** −0.114 −9.49** −0.112 −11.68 −0.167 −13.94**
EDU3 −0.101 −11.87** −0.095 −11.57** −0.086 −9.05** −0.095 −10.55 −0.151 −11.86**
EDU4 −0.067 −9.13** −0.063 −8.91** −0.061 −7.74** −0.058 −8.53 −0.095 −8.58**
NET1 −0.019 −1.68* −0.018 −1.7 −0.015 −1.45 −0.018 −1.81 −0.028 −1.85*
NET2 0.055 1.86* 0.052 1.81* 0.049 1.86* 0.049 1.85 0.070 1.82*
HOME −0.002 −0.17 −0.002 −0.16 −0.001 −0.05 −0.003 −0.25 −0.004 −0.22
Hhsize 0.000 −0.28 −0.001 −0.34 0.000 0.06 −0.001 −0.34 −0.001 −0.34
Age 0.015 2.74** 0.014 2.71** 0.012 2.4** 0.014 3.1 0.019 2.56**
Gender −0.003 −0.24 −0.003 −0.2 −0.003 −0.28 0.000 −0.01 0.0 0.0

Tailoring Construction Labour Others

Mar. z Mar. z Mar. effect z Mar. z

effect effect effect

0.009 0.75 0.005 0.32 0.01 1.15 0.018 1.65

−0.005 −0.41 −0.011 −0.82 −0.01 −0.57 0.013 1.26
−0.007 −0.58 −0.006 −0.41 −0.01 −0.55 0.007 0.75
−0.028 −1.79* −0.028 −1.43 −0.03 −1.75* −0.014 −1.07
−0.041 −3.1** −0.046 −2.78** −0.04 −3.2** −0.036 −4.14**
−0.025 −1.82* −0.025 −1.65* −0.03 −1.86* −0.015 −1.5
−0.035 −2.43** −0.035 −2.2** −0.04 −2.47** −0.021 −1.96*
−0.024 −1.83* −0.020 −1.27 −0.03 −1.83* −0.021 −1.77*
−0.148 −12.76** −0.115 −10.71 −0.13 −11.82** −0.147 −10.02**
−0.115 −11.55** −0.137 −11.45 −0.14 −11.66** −0.088 −9.11**
−0.081 −10.4** −0.107 −10.26 −0.09 −10.38** −0.070 −8.48**
−0.058 −8.34** −0.067 −7.85 −0.06 −8.48** −0.045 −7.69**
−0.014 −1.41 −0.024 −2.17 −0.01 −1.42 −0.007 −0.89
0.053 1.88* 0.051 1.79 0.05 1.9* 0.048 2.06**
0.000 −0.04 −0.007 −0.54 0.00 −0.11 0.000 0.04
0.000 −0.27 −0.001 −0.4 0.00 −0.26 0.000 0.21
0.011 2.43** 0.015 2.79** 0.01 2.51** 0.010 2.75**
−0.007 −0.52 0.007 0.55 −0.01 −0.45 −0.006 −0.61

Note: Chi2 (171) = 2038.08; no. of observations = 3593; **,*denote significance at 5% and 10% levels,
respectively.
MIGOBC: Migrant OBCs; MIGSC: migrant SCs; non-MIGGEN: non-migrant general; non-MIGOBC: non-
migrant OBCs; non-MIGSC: non-migrant SCs; CITY1: Jaipur; CITY2: Ludhiana; CITY3: Mathura;
EDU1: Illiterate; EDU2: primary; EDU3: middle; EDU4: secondary (ref. category: graduation and above);
NET1: networks through family members; NET2: network through relatives; HOME: home at place of origin;
Hhsz: household size; Age: age of the principal earner; Gender: gender dummy (female = 0 and male = 1).
 Urban Research & Practice 171

Table A3. Present income function (two alternative specifications).

Variables Coeff. t Ratio Variables Coeff. t Ratio

EMP1 −11,216.03 −8.84** EMP1 −11,494.97 −9.05**

EMP2 −6360.815 −4.99** EMP2 −6545.899 −5.13**
CITY1 16,398.51 11.71** CITY1 16,520.81 11.78**
CITY2 9191.482 6.2** CITY2 8691.833 5.89**
CITY3 7796.174 5.25** CITY3 7709.429 5.18**
MIG1 −21,044.59 −3.95** MIGOBC −4075.479 −1.65*
MIG2 −917.6077 −0.4 MIGSC −6485.455 −1.95*
MIG3 2564.404 1.28 Non-MIGGEN −3687.097 −1.7*
SOC1 −5942.029 −1.71* Non-MIGOBC −4305.808 −1.96*
SOC2 −6860.487 −1.98** Non-MIGSCN −2172.872 −0.97
SOC3 −5254.946 −1.49 EDU1 −27,415.5 −14.56**
EDU1 −27,283.72 −14.51** EDU2 −25,809.84 −13.49**
EDU2 −25,655.14 −13.44** EDU3 −21,765.29 −11.34**
EDU3 −21,715.94 −11.34** EDU4 −16,654.38 −8.12**
EDU4 −16,610.72 −8.11** NET1 846.5136 0.62
NET1 866.0658 0.63 NET2 −1809.955 −0.75
NET2 −2108.381 −0.87 Hhsize 463.7589 2.56**
Hhsize 450.1907 2.49** Age 5517.771 9.9**
Age 5416.578 9.7** Gender 11,043.16 8.18**
Gender 11,237.49 8.34** _cons 22,909.74 6.01**
Constant 25,493.87 5.28**
Note: No. of observation = 3478; Adj. R-squared = 0.20; **,*denote significance at 5% and 10% levels,
respectively.
F(21, 3456) = 45.89 and 47.3 for equations 1 and 2, respectively.
EMP1: Casual; EMP2: regular; SOC1: general; SOC2: OBCs; SOC3: SCs; CITY1: Jaipur; CITY2: Ludhiana;
CITY3: Mathura; MIG1: less than 1 year; MIG2: 1–4 years; MIG3: 5–9 years; EDU1: illiterate; EDU2: primary;
EDU3: middle; EDU4: secondary (ref. cate. graduation and above); NET1: networks through family members;
NET2: network through relatives; Hhsz: household size; Age: age of the principal earner; Gender: gender dummy
(female = 0 and male = 1); MIGOBC: migrant OBCs; MIGSC: migrant SCs; non-MIGGEN: non-migrant
general; non-MIGOBC: non-migrant OBCs; non-MIGSC: non-migrant SCs.
172 S. Chandrasekhar and A. Mitra

Table A4. Probability of falling Ill: binomial logit model.

Variables Coeff. z dy/dx z

EMP1 0.152836 1.71* 0.017999 1.65*

EMP2 −0.12063 −1.2 −0.01316 −1.24
CITY1 0.102152 1.24 0.011737 1.21
CITY2 0.081778 0.96 0.009393 0.95
CITY3 −0.17751 −2.07* −0.01946 −2.14*
MIGOBC −0.14555 −0.85 −0.01566 −0.9
MIGSC −0.33614 −1.65* −0.03373 −1.83*
Non-MIGGEN −0.10009 −0.84 −0.01113 −0.85
Non-MIGOBC 0.004204 0.04 0.000475 0.04
Non-MIGSC −0.19115 −1.65* −0.02085 −1.65*
EDU1 0.065645 0.9 0.007507 0.89
Hhsize −0.08685 −7.49** −0.00981 −7.61**
Age −0.04195 −1.94* −0.00474 −1.94*
Gender −0.05653 −0.92 −0.00639 −0.92
_cons −1.10431 −7.16**
Number of observation = 10,929; Chi2 (14) = 98.09; **,*denote significance at 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
EMP1: Casual; EMP2: regular; CITY1: Jaipur; CITY2: Ludhiana; CITY3: Mathura; MIG1: less than 1 year;
MIGOBC: migrant OBCs; MIGSC: migrant SCs; non-MIGGEN: non-migrant general; non-MIGOBC: non-
migrant OBCs; non-MIGSC: non-migrant SCs; EDU1: illiterate; NET1: networks through family members;
NET2: network through relatives; Hhsz: household size; Age: age of the principal earner; Gender: gender dummy
(female = 0 and male = 1).