migration development class ppt

BITS Pilani, K K Birla Goa Campus

Migration & Development


Focus Areas :Case Studies

Working DefinitionTypes of Migration

Why Migration OccursPatterns of Migration

Facts & FiguresLost, Found & Reinvented

Theoretical Approach


1992- 500 Years of Discovery of New World

Case of Central American Weavers & USA ApparelMarket

Brazilian Economist vs. LAC Economic Collapse & thecase of Mexican Revenge

Formation of NAFTA / TATA’s Land Rovers Case

Chinese Population Replacement in Siberia

Understanding Migration


Growth of Shanti Towns in Urban locations

Movement of Bihar/UP/Madras Presidency People toCaribbean Island & Plantation Drive

Student Migration to Developed Countries


Political prosecution have also caused large scalemigration both within the borders and beyond borders.

Jews Migration

Goans have migrated down south, Pundits have fledtheir home land in Jammu and Kashmir, Tamilianshave also moved away from Sri Lanka and many moresuch examples.

In the 1960s, Pakistan used population replacement inChittagong Hill Tract (CHT) region to tamper andcontrol the erstwhile East Pakistan.


Migration is more and more visible in comingtimes as more and more barrier free tradenegotiations are to dominate the internationaleconomics.

Migration or free movement of work force fromtheir place of birth to newer destinations ofopportunity there fore, is more an economicmodel and is directly linked to market dynamicsand development models.


Countries may differ for the minimum length of stayrequired to qualify as an immigrant rather than as avisitor— three months in Belgium and Italy, for example.

12 months in Ireland.

Moreover, some countries classify asylum seekers asimmigrants while others do not.

Data for Germany, for example, include some asylumseekers, but not all.

Who is Migrant / Immigrant?


The movement can be within the nation or outside thenational boundaries.

The United Nations protocol on migration, considers ita case of migration when there is movement to a newplace for more than a calendar year.

Going by this standard, the United Nations estimated191 million migrants world wide in 2005 which is 3% ofworld’s 6.4 billion population.


As per the United Nations estimate, half of the world’sresidents as well as half of the world’s migrants are inthe labour force, either employed or aspiring foremployment.

Largest chunk of migrants there fore are in the globallabour market.

The global labour force distribution profile indicatesthat 40% labour force is employed in agriculture, 20%in industry and remaining 40% are in service sector.

Migrants vs. Labour Market


In contrast to sector distribution of global labour force,approximately 60% of the global migrants are located indeveloped or industrial countries – indicative of thelinkage between migration and scope and scale ofeconomic development.

Migrant work force distribution is also markedlydifferent from that of native born work force.

Approximately 10% migrants into the industrialcountries labour force is engaged in agriculture sector,40% in industry and remaining 50% is absorbed inservice sector.


Migration Patterns


Migrants can be divided into five main categories:

Settlers, contract workers, professionals, unauthorizedworkers & asylum seekers and refugees.

Settlers - These are people who intend to livepermanently in their new country.

Most head for the main countries of settlement, notablythe United States, Canada and Australia.

Around one million travel a year, the majority of whomare joining close family members.

Types of Migrants


Contract workers - They are admitted to othercountries on the understanding that they will stay onlyfor a specific period: the length of their contract.

Some are seasonal workers.

Others will be on longer-term contracts, of a year ormore.

Most are to be found in the Gulf countries.


Professionals - These include employees of transnationalcorporations who are moved around from one country to another.

These tend to involve fairly small numbers, typically fewer than 1% ofpeople employed in local affiliates are expatriates.

Irregular workers - Sometimes called undocumented or illegalimmigrants.

There are significant numbers in most immigration countries.

Some have been smuggled in, others are overstaying their visas, orare working on tourist visas.


Asylum seekers and refugees - Asylum seekers haveleft their homes to escape danger; if their claims forasylum have been accepted they are then classified as'refugees'.

In some cases of mass flight, however, whenthousands of people escape across a border they areaccepted as refugees without going through thisindividual process.

These are the main categories but there are many otherpossibilities.


Why People Migrate ?

Wage GapThe Need for Workers

Development Disruption


Wage gaps

Most people migrate, either temporarily or permanently,to take advantage of opportunities in richer countries— to earn more money and widen their horizons.

The most tempting gaps in income are betweenindustrial and developing countries.

The largest wage gap between two neighboringcountries is between the US and Mexico.

Why people migrate?


Hourly earnings for US workers are around $15, andrange from a low of $10 in retail trade to $19 inconstruction.

An average factory worker in the US earns around fourtimes more than one working in Mexico, and 30 timesmore than a Mexican agricultural worker.

On average in the US foreign-born men earned 71% asmuch as native born men in 2000, primarily becausethey were concentrated in lower-paid occupations.


Within Europe one of the widest cross-border wagegaps is between Germany and Poland.

Polish factory workers earning $250 per month oftentherefore choose to spend their holidays in Germanywhere they can harvest asparagus for wages of $900 amonth.

Similar gaps are evident all over the world: betweenBurma and Thailand, for example, or betweenMozambique and South Africa.


Does this mean that wages everywhere would have tobe equal to stop migration? Probably not.

In Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, for example, therewas large-scale migration from Spain and Italy toFrance and Germany.

But as the wage ratios gradually fell fewer peoplechose to leave even though significant gaps remained.

This was probably because people were thinking notjust about the present but about the future. Whenprospects brighten most people prefer to stay at home.


Another reason why people migrate is that many richercountries have jobs available for immigrant workers.

To some extent the demand for immigrants fluctuatesaccording to economic cycles.

During the period of rapid growth from the 1950s to themid-1970s, many European countries had a hugedemand for workers, and brought in immigrants to fill thegaps.

‘Asian tiger' economies have also relied on immigrantsat times of rapid growth.

The Need for workers


South Korea, for example, used to export millions of its ownworkers but by the early 1990s was facing severe labourshortages, particularly for construction, and drew in peoplefrom neighboring countries.

The same situation is still evident in countries such as theUnited Kingdom which are desperately short of workers inmany areas particularly in the health and educationservices.

But the need for immigrants persists even during economicdownturns.


This is partly because once these flows start, they aredifficult to stop; workers put down roots and want theirfamilies to join them.

But more fundamentally the 'dual labour market', mentionedin the section on migration theory, persists and ensuresthere is an irreducible demand for immigrants to do the lesspopular work that local workers reject.

This was highlighted during the economic crisis in Asiafrom 1997.

The first instincts of the governments of Thailand andMalaysia was to halt employment of immigrants.


But when farmers and factories complained that theynow had no-one to do the work, their governments hadto relent and remove the restrictions.

Nevertheless long-term immigrants are also more likelyto be unemployed: in most European countries,unemployment rates for foreigners are twice as high asfor native workers.

This is partly because they often work in more unstablejobs, but also because of discrimination, unofficial andofficial.


Another factor influencing emigration is the disruption caused byeconomic and social development.

Development & modernization break up many of the relationshipsthat hold communities together. Large-scale commercialagriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean Basin, for example,has displaced millions of small producers.

Mexico is one of the clearest examples. From 1989 onwards, thegovernment started to dismantle the system of communally held'ejido' land and reduced subsidies to farmers.

Since then hundreds of thousands of Mexicans have left the land.Most of those farmers had to leave the countryside and flock to thetowns and cities.

Development disruption


But the cities generally cannot offer the jobs the immigrants need. So themillions of people who crowd the slums and squatter settlements mayalso ultimately be tempted - or forced - to look further afield.

This is similar to the processes which European countries went throughduring the industrial revolution.

Added to this, there have been profound demographic changes, largely asa result of falling death rates, that have resulted rapid increases inpopulation size.

Nevertheless the underlying principle is similar — that the disruptioncaused by economic and social development makes people more mobileand creates the conditions for emigration.


Fundamental Question of Cost of Migration-

Social Cost of MigrationCulture Interface vs. Culture ShockFactor Movement &

Do immigrants steal the jobs of local workers?Do immigrants sponge off welfare states?Do emigrants drain skills from their home countries?

A world on the move / The Development Dilemma


Migration Country Analysis: India

Europeanization of South Asia &Indianisation of Europe


How Does India Connect

Historical Neglect & Lost EraThree Decades of Found & Reinvented

Focus as InvestorsDevelopment Collaboration Focus


USA Migration Profile

The United States receives more immigrants than anycountry – indeed almost more than all other countriesput together. Despite efforts at restriction, the numbershave been rising steadily, primarily because of thedemand for labour.

Immigration to the US, 1820-2005, thousands


Arrivals in 2005 - 12,22,400 Foreign-born total -38 million (12.9% of population) Sources of legal arrivals –

India, 7.5%; China, 6.2%; Philippines 5.4%; Cuba 3.2%

Immigration to the United States has been rising steadily andhas now reached levels similar to those of the early 1900s.

In 1914 arrivals of 1.2 million were 1.5% of the population,whereas in 2005 they were around 0.3%.

Note that this is just arrivals. In fact, around one-third ofpermanent settlers return home.


27 Million People

Matching the population of Malaysia & Saudi Arab2nd to Chinese Diaspora of 35 Million People

Four Major concentrations

- South East Asia - 5.5Million- Middle East - 5.3Million- Developed Economies - 5.3Million

(USA-22.45Lac / UK-15 L / Canada-11L / Australia-4.48Lac)

India Migration Profile


Goan migration is spread over 43 countries of theworld.

The state annually receives over Rs.7billion as foreignremittances.

Remittances constitute nearly 6.3% of the States GDP

& 33% of revenue receipt of the state and covers nearly6% of the revenue expenditure of the provincialgovernment

Goa Migration Sample Facts


12% of local households have at least one emigrantcurrently living abroad

and 4% households have one return migrant.

The average migration is in the age group of 20-39years.

56% of Goan migrants work in Middle East who arepotential return migrants and return much before idealretirement age and look forward to another two or threedecades of active life


Four Financial Modes1- Remittances

2- Occasional Hard Currency Development Fund like -India Development Bond -1991

Resurgent India Bond- 1998Millennium Development Deposits-2000

3- Banking / Tax Exemption / Insurance etc.

4- Incentivized FDI / EXIM Policy Schemes

Global Remittances ProfileUS$ billion

1990-2010

Sr. Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 20101 India 2.384 5.2 12.883 22.125 53.1312 China 0.175 2.0 5.237 24.102 51.3003 Mexico 3.098 4.0 7.525 23.062 21.9974 Philippines 1.465 5.5 6.961 13.566 21.3735 Bangladesh 0.779 1.2 1.968 4.315 10.8046 Nigeria 0.010 0.075 1.392 3.329 10.0457 Pakistan 2.006 1.8 1.075 4.280 9.6838 Lebanon 1.818 1.2 1.582 4.934 8.4069 Vietnam 0 0 0 4.0 8.0

10 Egypt 4.284 3.15 2.852 5.017 7.725

Source: Remittance Fact Book, MPI

Remittances Growth Trajectory

Two Decade Top Ten Remittance Receiving Countries Comparative ProfileUS$ Billions

Top Ten Remittance Receiving Countries 2010US$ Billion

% ShareSr. No Country Year 2010 % of GDP % of FDI % of

MerchandiseExport

% ofCommercial

ServicesExport

1 India 53.131 4% 143% 30% 57%2 China 51.300 1% 62% 4% 38%3 Mexico 21.997 3% 157% 10% 142%4 Philippines 21.373 12% 1015% 51% 196%5 Bangladesh 10.804 12% 1561% 70% 1125%6 Nigeria 10.045 6% 166% 18% 542%7 Pakistan 9.683 5% 365% 49% 361%8 Lebanon 8.406 22% 157% 181% 38%9 Vietnam 8.0 7% 90% 12% 121%10 Egypt 7.725 4% 107% 31% 34%

Source: Remittances Fact Book, MPI


Result AnalysisComparative Inward FDI Stock


Remittance of assets by NRI and PIO:

May remit up to Rs.1Lac per year out of NRO A/Cfrom the sale proceeds of assets.

May remit sales proceeds of immovable propertysold by him out of rupee funds provided that heowned the property for a period of 10 years.

Remittance Driving Incentives


Repatriation of sale proceeds of residential propertypurchased by NRIs /PIOs out of the foreign exchange:

Can repatriate sales proceeds up to two residentialproperties purchased by them.

Can remit funds of application/earnest money withinterest on account of non-allotment provided thatthe original payment was made out of NRE (NonExternal Rupee) or FCNR (Foreign Currency Non-resident) account.


Remittance of current income:

NRIs/PIOs permitted to remit current income likerent, dividend, pension, interest etc. providedthat they do not maintain NRO Accounts.

Subject to simple certification by a CA with thatapplicable taxes have been paid for.

NRIs/PIOs can credit the current income to theirNon-Resident (External) Rupee account.


Remittance of Rent:

NRIs / PIOs can freely rent out their immovable property inIndia without the prior permission of the RBI.

If financed by housing loans, rental income has to beadjusted towards the repayment of the loan.

If rental income is less than the installment, the borrowershould remit the outstanding loan amount from abroad orfrom his NRE, FCNR or NRO A/C in India.

International Credit Cards permitted for NRI / PIOs without RBIpermission


Hard Currency Development Fund

1991 - India Development Bond (IDB) 1998 – Resurgent India Bond (RIB)

2000 - Millennium Development Deposits

In three occasions they have been floated.Received strong Response.

Generated over US$ 11billion


1912- Japanese Patriotic Bonds sold through theJapanese Patriotic Bond Subscription Society.

1930s- China Liberty Bonds sold through ChineseBenevolent Associations in the United.

1951-Israel Independence Issues- floated byDevelopment Corporation for Israel (DCI). Ben. Gurionlunched it in USA and generated US$ 52.6Million.

Israel so far has generated over US$25billion


2001- Sri Lanka Development Bonds (SLDB) sold tomultiple investor categories including nonresident SriLankans. Has generated more than US$ 580million.

1970s- Egypt in late 1970s reportedly issued bonds toEgyptian workers throughout the Middle East.

South African Reconciliation and Development (R&D)Bonds to domestic as well as expatriates are a projectmission for South Africa.


2008- Ethiopia Millennium Corporate Bond - a singleissue bond, to raise capital for the state ownedEthiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO).

Lebanon also seems to have banked on the Lebanesediaspora financial strength.


1998- Mexico through Banco Nacional de Mexicoissued a $300-million remittance backed certificate.

1999- El Salvador issued remittance-backed certificatesthrough Banco Cuscatlan of El Salvador.

2001- Brazil through Banco do Brasil issued $300million worth of bonds.

Latin America & Caribbean


2001- Peru also through Peru’s Banco de Crédito DelPerú raised $100 million.

Grenada with a total diaspora constituency of only230,000 people largely confined to four countries -neighboring USA, Canada, and Trinidad & Tobago andfinally UK - analyzing prospect of diaspora funding


Now Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal aremulling over the idea of diaspora funding tohelp rescue their economies from theircurrent crisis.

Europe


Income Tax Totally Exempted Under following bank A/Cs -NRE A/C – Shall cease if NRI/PIO becomes the resident of India.

FCNR A/C - Interest on FCNR will continue to be tax free tillthe NRI continues to be Resident not an Ordinarily

Resident.

UTI/Mutual Funds/ Bonds/ Securities/ Saving Certificates (asper Income-tax laws and regulations).

Dividends declared by Indian companies.

Long term capital gains from transfer of equity shares

Tax & Insurance Sector Incentives


Wealth Tax Exemptions

Finance Act 1992 considerably reduced wealth tax onNRIs PIOs. w.e.f. 1st April, 1993.

Charged only on non-productive assets like urban land,buildings (except one house property), jewelry, bullion,vehicles, and cash over 50,000/- etc.

The current rate of wealth tax is 1% on the cumulativemarket value of taxable assets as on 31st March everyyear in excess of Rs.1.5 million.


No Gift Tax from 1st October, 1998

However, Gifts by NRI/PIO to spouse, minor children or son’s wifeshall involve clubbing of income and wealth in the hands of the donor.

Gifts to Minor Children- Income clubbing shall cease after childrenbecome 18 years.

NRl/PlO Gifts- subject to the tax authorities scrutiny.

Gifts for marriage of the individual, irrespective of any limit, (butwithin reasonable limits) would not constitute income.

Under FEMA 1999- No RBI approval needed for the resident donee tohold gifted immovable property outside India provided the saidproperty is gifted by a person resident outside India.


Immovable Property Incentive under FEMA-

Foreign citizen who is a resident of India can purchaseimmovable property (IP) in India without any approvalfrom the RBI.

Citizens Prohibited - Pakistan/Bangladesh/SriLanka/China/ Afghanistan /Iran/Nepal/Bhutan –

Acquiring / Transferring IP without RBI approval.

Investments in agricultural property/plantation/farmhouse / prohibited for all classes

Investment Incentives


Pravasi Bharatiya Bima Yojna 2006 –

Insurance cover of Rs.5.00lakhs (minimum) to thenominee / legal heir in the event of death or permanentdisability of any Indian emigrant who goes abroad foremployment purpose.

Subject to emigration clearance from the concernedProtector of Emigrants (POE).

Insurance Sector Opportunity


Investment under Automatic Route with repatriationbenefits:

Investments in shares/debentures of Indian companieswithout obtaining RBI / Govt. Approval.

Investment with Government approval:Select sectors require FIPB permission with repatriation

option for NRIs and OCBs.

Other investments with repatriation benefits:Domestic Mutual Funds/ Bonds /shares issued by PSUs,

government securities and shares.

FDI / EXIM Policy Incentives


Investments up to 100% equity without repatriation benefits:

Except Agricultural/plantation/ Real Estate /Print Media

NRIs can invest by way of capital contribution in proprietaryor partnership concern in India subject to certain conditions.

Other investments by NRIs/OCBs without repatriation benefits:

Investment in Non-Convertible DebenturesMoney Market Mutual Funds

Deposits with CompaniesCommercial Papers (OCBs are presently not permitted)


Air Transport Sector-

Up to 49% & 74% FDIs permitted in scheduled andnonscheduled air transport services.

NRIs can invest up to 100%.

FDI cap in the domestic airlines sector has beenenhanced from 40% to 49%.

NRI investment is permitted up to100% with no direct orindirect equity participation by the foreign airlines.

FDI Incentives


SEZ Projects –

NRI investments in SEZ projects, hotels, hospitals arecomparatively more liberal than others.

Township Development-

100% FDI allowed under the automatic route fordevelopment of township, housing, built up infrastructureand construction development projects.

The minimum area requirement has been reduced to 10hectares for serviced housing plots and 50,000 squaremeters built up area for construction-development projects.

For investment by NRIs, the conditions are not applicable.


Telecom Sector-

FDI cap increased from 49% to 74% in basic and cellular telecom services.The revised cap includes both FDI and portfolio investment.

FDI has been permitted in FM Radio Broadcasting up to a maximum of 20%(which is inclusive of FDI, NRI, PIO and FII).

Activities on general permission route of RBI–

Simplification of the existing procedures in FDI, Transfer of shares in anexisting Indian company from residents to nonresidents and vice-versa(except in the financial sector and where SEBI takeover code is attracted);

Conversion of ECB/loan into equity, provided the activity is covered under theautomatic route and the foreign equity after such conversion falls within thesectoral cap;


Migration & Development:Theoretical Perspective


Phenomenal Increase in Migration Studies in the recentyears.

Largely due to financial facet of the issue. Remittancesin Particular triggered the shift in focus.

Striking increase in remittance flows. Remittances sentback to developing countries rose from $31.1 billion in1990 to $76.8 billion in 2000 to $167.0 billion in 2005.

Prospect of all round Collaboration increases the focus


There is a growing belief that remittances are a moreeffective instrument for income redistribution, povertyreduction and economic growth than large,bureaucratic development programmes or developmentaid (Kapur 2003).

After decades of pessimism and concerns on braindrain, governments of migrant sending countries haveput renewed hopes on transnationally orientedmigrants and ‘Diasporas’ as potential investors andactors of development (De Haas & Plug 2006; Gamlen2006).


Migration and development is anything but a new topic.

However, the recent re-discovery of the migration-development nexus tends to go along with a striking level ofamnesia of the insights that have emerged from decades ofprior research and policy experience with the issue.

Table below depicts these main phases in the post-WWIIacademic and policy debate on migration and development.

It shows how the scholarly and policy debates on migrationand development have tended to swing back and forth like apendulum from sheer optimism to sheer pessimism, andback again to optimistic views in recent years.


Main phases in migration anddevelopment research &policies


Migration optimists Migration pessimistsFunctionalist StructuralistNeo-classical Neo-MarxistModernisation DisintegrationNet North-South transfer Net South-North transferBrain gain Brain drainMore equality More inequalityRemittance investment ConsumptionDevelopment DependencyLess migration More migration


Over the 20th century, several theoretical perspectives onmigration have evolved.

However, they have generally evolved in isolation from oneanother, and show important differences in their level of analysisas well as paradigmatic and thematic orientation.

One of the possible reasons for this lack of coherence is thatmigration has never been the exclusive domain of one of thesocial sciences, but has been studied by most of them.

Differences in disciplinary and paradigmatic orientation and levelof analysis have led to widespread controversy on the nature,causes, and consequences of migration.


In their seminal review article, Massey et al. (Massey et al1993:432) stated that-

popular thinking on international migration remains mired in19th century concepts, models, and assumptions . . . . a fullunderstanding of contemporary migration processes will notbe achieved by relying on the tools of one discipline alone, orby focusing on a single level of analysis.

Rather, their complex, multifaceted nature requires asophisticated theory that incorporates a variety ofperspectives, levels, and assumptions


Over the past decades, several migration researchers havebemoaned the absence of a comprehensive migration theory, andthere have been numerous calls or attempts to develop just such ageneral migration theory (Lee 1966; Massey et al 1998; Zelinsky1971).

Among the main reasons explaining why it is so difficult togeneralize about the causes and consequences of migration are thediversity and complexity of the phenomenon as well as the difficultyof separating migration from other socio-economic and politicalprocesses. Moreover, it is often difficult to combine macro- andmicro-level theories of migration.

This has led scholars to conclude that there will probably never be ageneral theory on migration (Salt 1987; Van Amersfoort 1998).


Up to the early 1980s, the theoretical debate onmigration tended to be rather polarized-

With neo-classical views on the one hand & historical-structuralist views (neo-Marxist, dependency, worldsystems) on the other.

Since then, however, under the influence ofpostmodernism, the debate has become lesspolarized and has been characterized by increasingsynergy between migration theorists from differentdisciplines and paradigmatic backgrounds.


Most migration is over a short distance.Migration occurs in steps.Long-range migrants usually move to urban areas.Each migration produces a movement in the opposite direction(although not necessarily of the same volume). Case of GoaRural dwellers are more migratory than urban dwellers.Within their own country females are more migratory than males, butmales are more migratory over long distances.Most migrants are adults.Large towns grow more by migration than by natural increase.Migration increases with economic development.Migration is mostly due to economic causes.

Laws of Migrationby E. G. Ravenstein (1885)


Ravenstein's findings stimulated an enormous volumeof work, and, although the ‘laws’ have been adjusted bysucceeding researchers, they have not been totallyrejected.

Observations of each ‘law’ as applied to Britain in the1980s, for example, show that with respect to point 1,over half the moves made annually in England andWales were in the same local authority area;

and to point 3, that the largest urban centers receivedthe highest number of immigrants.


At the macro-level, neo-classical economic theory explains migration by geographicaldifferences in the supply and demand for labor.

The resulting differentials in wages cause workers to move from low-wage, labor-surplus regions to high-wage, labor- scarce regions.

Migration will cause labor to become less scarce at the destination and scarcer at thesending end.

Capital is expected to move in the opposite direction.

In a perfectly neo-classical world, this process of “factor price equalization” (theHeckscher-Ohlin model) will eventually result in growing convergence betweenwages at the sending and receiving end (Harris & Todaro 1970; Lewis 1954; Ranis &Fei 1961; Schiff 1994; Todaro & Maruszko 1987).

In the long run, this process would remove the incentives for migrating.

General migration theoriesThe Neo-classical equilibrium perspective


At the micro-level, neo-classical migration theory viewsmigrants as individual, rational actors, who decide to moveon the basis of a cost-benefit calculation.

Assuming free choice and full access to information, theyare expected to go where they can be the most productive,that is, are able to earn the highest wages.

This capacity obviously depends on the specific skills aperson possesses and the specific structure of labormarkets.

Neo-classical migration theory sees rural-urban migrationas an constituent part of the whole development process, bywhich surplus labor in the rural sector supplies theworkforce for the urban industrial economy (Lewis 1954).


Neo-classical migration theory is firmly entrenched in“developmentalist” modernization theory based ondevelopment as a linear, universal process consistingof successive stages (cf. Rostow 1960).

Todaro (1969) and Harris and Todaro (1970) elaboratedthe basic two-sector model of rural- to-urban labourmigration.

This influential “Harris-Todaro model” has remainedthe basis of neo-classical migration theory since then.


The first scholarly contribution to migration consisted oftwo articles by the 19th century geographer E.G.Ravenstein(1885; 1889).

In which he formulated his “laws of migration”.

He saw migration as an inseparable part of development, andasserted that the major causes of migration were economic.

Migration patterns were further assumed to be influenced byfactors such as distance and population densities (Skeldon1997:19).


This perspective, in which people are expected to movefrom low income to high income areas, and fromdensely to sparsely populated areas, that is, thegeneral notion that migration movements tend towardsa certain spatial-economic equilibrium, has remainedalive in the work of many demographers, geographers,and economists ever since (Castles & Miller 2003:22),and, as we will see, is also the underlying assumptionof push-pull theories.


A radically different interpretation of migration wasprovided as of the 1960s by the historical-structuralparadigm on development,

Has its intellectual roots in Marxist political economy andin world systems theory (Castles & Miller 2003:25).

Contemporary historical-structural theory emerged inresponse to functionalist (neo-classical) anddevelopmentalist- modernizationist approaches towardsdevelopment.

Historical-structural theory and asymmetric growth


Historical- structuralists postulate that –

Economic and political power is unequally distributedamong developed and underdeveloped countries.

That people have unequal access to resources, and that capitalist expansion has the tendency to reinforce these

inequalities.

Instead of modernizing and gradually progressing towardseconomic development, underdeveloped countries aretrapped by their disadvantaged position within the globalgeopolitical structure.


As in most fields of social science, historical-structuralism has dominated migration research in the1970s and most of the 1980s.

Historical structuralists have not developed a migrationtheory as such, but perceive migration as a naturaloutgrowth of disruptions and dislocations that areintrinsic to the process of capitalist accumulation.

They interpret migration as one of the manymanifestations of capitalist penetration and theincreasingly unequal terms of trade between developedand underdeveloped countries (Massey et al 1998:36).


Andre Gunder Frank the frontrunner of the“dependency” theory, which hypothesized that globalcapitalism (and migration as one of its manifestations)contributed to the “development of underdevelopment”.

The dependency school views migration not just asdetrimental to the economies of underdevelopedcountries but also as one of the very causes ofunderdevelopment, rather than as a path towardsdevelopment.


According to this view, migration ruins stable peasantsocieties, undermines their economies and uprootstheir populations.

Emmanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theoryclassified countries according to their degree ofdependency, and distinguished between the capitalist“core” nations, followed by the “semi-peripheral”,“peripheral”, and isolated nations in the “external”area, which were not (yet) included in the capitalistsystem.


In this perspective, the incorporation of the peripheries into the capitalisteconomy is associated with putting a (migration) drain on them, exactlythe opposite of factor price equalization presumed by neo-classicaltheory.

Instead of flowing in the opposite direction of capital as predicted by neo-classical category, the idea is that labour follows where capital goes.

Historical structuralists have criticized neo-classical migration theory,stating that individuals do not have a free choice, because they arefundamentally constrained by structural forces. Rather than a matter offree choice, people are forced to move because traditional economic

structures have been undermined as a result of their incorporation intothe global political- economic system.


Both neo-classical and historical-structural theories ofmigration generally fail to explain why some people in acertain country or region migrate and others do not(Massey et al 1993; Reniers 1999:680),

and why people tend to migrate between particularplaces in a spatially clustered, concentrated, typicallynon-random fashion.

It can therefore be useful to look at some of the spatialmodels developed by mainly geographers anddemographers.

Why some migrate and others do not?

Push – Pull Model


E.S. Lee (1966) revised Ravenstein’s 19th century lawson migration and proposed a new analytical frameworkfor migration.

In his view, the decision to migrate is determined by thefollowing factors:

factors associated with the area of origin; factorsassociated with the area of destination; so-calledintervening obstacles (such as distance, physicalbarriers, immigration laws, and so on); and personalfactors.


Lee argued that migration tends to take place withinwell-defined “streams”,

from specific places at the origin to specific places atthe destination,

not only because opportunities tend to be highlylocalized but also because the flow of knowledge backfrom destination facilitates the passage for latermigrants.


Lee also stated that migration is selective with respect to theindividual characteristics of migrants because peoplerespond differently to “plus” and “minus” factors at originsand destinations and have different abilities to cope withthe intervening variables (Reniers 1999:681).

Therefore, migrants are rarely representative of theircommunity of origin.

This is consistent with the neo-classical perspective whichexplains migration selectivity by individual differences inhuman capital endowments and the discriminating aspectsof costs and risks associated with migration.


Although Lee did not apparently invent or employ theterm Push-Pull himself, his analytical framework iscommonly referred to as the “push-pull” model(Passaris 1989).

The push-pull model is basically an individual choiceand equilibrium model, and is, therefore, largelyanalogous to neo-classical micro models.

The push-pull model has gained enormous popularityin the migration literature & has become the dominantmigration model.


Most researchers who have applied the push-pull framework have assumed thatvarious environmental, demographic, and economic factors determine migrationdecisions.

Two main forces are typically distinguished to create the pushes and pulls:

(1) rural population growth causing a Malthusian pressure on natural andagricultural resources, and pushing people out of marginal rural areas, and

(2) economic conditions (higher wages) luring people into cities and industrializedcountries.

At first sight, the push-pull model seems attractive, as it is apparently able toincorporate all the factors that play a role in migration decision-making.

Because of its apparent ability to integrate other theoretical insights, it has beenfrequently suggested that a general view of labour migration could best be achievedusing a push-pull framework


The government of India officially acknowledged thepresence of her diaspora with the dawn of the newmillennium and decided to formally engage themthrough various programs including the PravasiBharatiya Divas from 2003.

Much before such an initiative by the Government ofIndia, the dispersed Indian communities had alreadybeen networking by establishing several voluntaryorganizations. For instance, the Global Organization ofPeople of Indian Origin had its first convention in 1989to unite the entire Indian diaspora to safeguard andpromote her interest.

India’s Development Dynamicswith the Community


GOPIO has been gaining ground far and wide.

Same is the case with Punjabi & Gujarati associationsnetworking around the world.

The Telugu diaspora initiated its global networksthrough launching of the World Telugu Conference in1975 which subsequently emerged as World TeluguFederation (WTF) in 1992.

The WTF held its Convention in Durban 1994, hostedby Andhra Maha Sabha of South Africa, bringing theTelugus world over to South Africa.


Today we find transnational networking among theIndian diaspora based on multiple identities of religion,region and also of caste, especially among the newdiaspora and the diaspora communities which haveretained closer linkages with places of their origin.

Indian Diaspora suggest that the Indian immigrantshave crossed approximately the 27 million mark,dispersed around the globe in more than 70 countries(MEA, 2002).

They number above 10,000 in 48 countries and half amillion mark in 11 countries.


People of Indian origin represent a significant proportionof the population of some of the countries such as –

They are a ‘visible’ minority in countries like-

Malaysia-7.20%Hong Kong & Singapore- 5.40%South Africa-3.00%United Kingdom- 2.10%Canada -2.6%U.S.A- 1.60%

Mauritius- 60.35%Guyana -51.01%Trinidad & Tobago- 39.04%Surinam-35.00%Fiji- 41.34%

Almost all countries in West Asia and the Gulf have a substantial work forcerecruited from India though they return to the places of their origin after thetermination of their contracts.


Country Perception largely owing to these paradigmshift, now looks at Migrants as important constituencyfor variety of development collaborations.

Hence, Govt. of India has divided the MEA into twoMinistries i.e.

MEA & Overseas Indian Affairs Ministry. Number of local cells like NRI Cell are instituted in state

levels. Programmes like Know India, Know Goa/ My Village

Project etc. are periodically organized by Ministry tocreate a corridor of understanding.

The approach is likely to increase in future

Conclusion

migration development class ppt

Documents

birla goa

classical

india development

indian companies

united states

free choice

sale proceeds

middle east