New Mobilities, New Agrarian Forms? Migration and Agrarian Transformations in Southeast

686 views
592 views

Published on

Jonathan Rigg from the Geography Department of the National University of Singapore describes how the migration patters are changing, how mobile living has evolved, how the life course of migrants has changed, how all of this has affected farming, how the household is changing, what the differences between first and second-generation migrants are and how the urbane villager can be defined.

Published in: Education, Travel, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
686
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
96
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

New Mobilities, New Agrarian Forms? Migration and Agrarian Transformations in Southeast

  1. 1. NEW MOBILITIES, NEW AGRARIAN FORMS?
 Migration and agrarian transformations in Southeast Jonathan  Rigg   Geography  Department   Na0onal  University  of  Singapore
  2. 2. Development  writ  small:
 Two  villages,  77  households,  25  years Ban  Non  Tae,  Northeast  Thailand:  1982
  3. 3. Ban  Non  Tae,  Northeast  Thailand:  1994
  4. 4. Ban  Non  Tae,  Northeast  Thailand:  2008
  5. 5. Three  surprises  here ! 1. Majority  of  households  dependent  on  non-­‐farm  work  &  individuals   increasingly  mobile   2. Despite  25  years  of  profound  change,  tracked  down  77  of  original  81   households     3. Large  majority  of  households  con0nued  to  own  and  farm  land
  6. 6. Household code Trends  vs.   turbulence Amount of money earned
  7. 7. Mobile  living:  counHng  and  catching   the  new  normal
  8. 8. ‘FloaHng  populaHons’  in  Vietnam  and  China ! Vietnam     • 12-­‐16  million,  or  13-­‐18%  of  the  country’s  total  popula0on  in  2010  (UNDP   2010:  5)   ! ! China     • 130  mio.  rural-­‐urban  migrant  workers   • largest  migra0on  stream  in  human  history;  including  rural-­‐rural  migrants   • total  number  on  the  move  at  the  end  of  2008:  225  mio.   ! ! Thailand,  Indonesia,  Philippines     • several  million  migrants  in  each  of  these  countries
  9. 9. ‘FloaHng  populaHons’  in  Vietnam  and  China „For the most part, migration data remain patchy, non-comparable and difficult to access.  … ! Despite our ability to establish these broad contours of movement, what we know is dwarfed by what we don’t know. Unfortunately, migration data remain weak. It is much easier for policy makers to count the international movements of shoes and cell-phones than of nurses and construction workers.“   (UNDP  2009,  28)
  10. 10. Known  unknowns:  Ban  Khokmayom:     Gauging  the  populaHon  of  a  village  in  Thailand !10
  11. 11. Known  unknowns:  Ban  Khokmayom:     Gauging  the  populaHon  of  a  village  in  Thailand Households Uthai  district  census  bureau  (2005) PopulaHon -­‐ 378 Tambon  data  (Kor  Chor  Chor  2  Khor  2003) Tambon  health  staHon  (2005) Survey  esHmate  (2005) !11
  12. 12. Known  unknowns:  Ban  Khokmayom:     Gauging  the  populaHon  of  a  village  in  Thailand Households PopulaHon Uthai  district  census  bureau  (2005) -­‐ 378 Tambon  data  (Kor  Chor  Chor  2  Khor  2003) 126 425 Tambon  health  staHon  (2005) Survey  esHmate  (2005) !12
  13. 13. Known  unknowns:  Ban  Khokmayom:     Gauging  the  populaHon  of  a  village  in  Thailand Households PopulaHon Uthai  district  census  bureau  (2005) -­‐ 378 Tambon  data  (Kor  Chor  Chor  2  Khor  2003) 126 126 425 425 Tambon  health  staHon  (2005) Survey  esHmate  (2005) 288 288 -­‐ 1,257 1,257 3,000 !13
  14. 14. Known  unknowns:  Ban  Khokmayom:     Gauging  the  populaHon  of  a  village  in  Thailand Households PopulaHon Uthai  district  census  bureau  (2005) -­‐ 378 Tambon  data  (Kor  Chor  Chor  2  Khor  2003) 126 425 Tambon  health  staHon  (2005) Survey  esHmate  (2005) 288 - 1,257 3,000 !14
  15. 15. Ban Khokmayom
  16. 16. Ban  Khokmayom
  17. 17. Everyday  poliHcal  economies:     Ban  Khokmayom
  18. 18. Ban  Khokmayom
  19. 19. Land-­‐grabbing/global  enclosure  in  Laos rubber  in  the  north
  20. 20. Mobility,  the  life  course  and  era-­‐ defining  change
  21. 21. Male Female 100,0000 75,0000 Farming 1989 Non-farm work 1989 50,0000 25,0000 Rite of passage? ! s + s 60 ye ar ar s 50 -5 9 ye ar s 40 -4 9 ye ar s 30 -3 9 ye ar s -2 9 ye 9 20 -1 10 ye s ar + s 60 ye ar ar s -5 9 ye ar s 50 40 -4 9 ye ar s 30 -3 9 ye ar ye 9 -2 20 10 -1 9 ye ar s 0,0000 Teasing  out  era,  life  course  and  generaHonal  changes   Gender,  genera0on  and  occupa0on  in  a  Northeastern  Thai  village
  22. 22. 100,0000 75,0000 Farming 1989 Non-farm work 1989 50,0000 25,0000 0,0000 Male Female 100,0000 Or era-defining change? 75,0000 50,0000 Farming 2000 Non-farm work 2000 25,0000 s + s 60 ye ar ar s -5 9 ye ar s 50 -4 9 ye ar s 40 30 -3 9 ye ar s ye ar 9 ye -2 9 -1 10 60 20 a ye rs ar s+ s -5 9 ye ar s 50 40 -4 9 ye ar s ye ar 30 -3 9 ye 9 -2 20 10 -1 9 ye ar s 0,0000
  23. 23. Residency  classificaHon  of  interviewees   Hanoi,  Vietnam  (2010) Residency   classificaHon Number  of   interviewees %  of  sample KT1 6 20 Average  length  of   Hme  in  Hanoi   (years) 20 KT2 3 10 20 KT3 7 23 14 KT4 9 30 13 No  registraHon 2 7 9 Unknown 3 10 6 Total 30 100 14 Note:  KT3  and  KT4  are  temporary  registra0ons;  these  interviewees  do  not  have   urban  residency  or  ho  khau
  24. 24. MulH-­‐sited  households,     mulH-­‐sited  livelihoods
  25. 25. Household  footprints,     Northeast  Thailand
  26. 26. Income  sources     Ban  Dong  Daeng,  Northeast  Thailand:  1981  &  2002  (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 40:60  agricultural/non-­‐agricultural 60:40  in  situ/ex  situ ! Village-based,! agricultural ! Village-based, ! Non-village based,! non-agricultural wages and remittances Source: data extracted from Funahashi 2009: 3.
  27. 27. Income  sources     Ban  Dong  Daeng,  Northeast  Thailand:  1981  &  2002  (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 40:60  agricultural/non-­‐agricultural 15:85  agricultural/non-­‐agricultural 60:40  in  situ/ex  situ 20:80  in  situ/ex  situ ! Village-based,! agricultural ! Village-based, ! Non-village based,! non-agricultural wages and remittances Source: data extracted from Funahashi 2009: 3.
  28. 28. Sub-­‐livelihood  landholdings:  few  are  becoming  landless;   many  are  becoming  land  poor 45,0 40,0 % (n=77) 35,0 The  %  of  landless  households  in  25   years  has  risen  from  5%  to  15%  -­‐  85%   sHll  own  (some)  land 1982/83 2008 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 None 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20-50 Categories of farmholding (rail) >50
  29. 29. Villages  sustained  through  absence     (Thanh  Hoa,  Vietnam,  2010)   ‘remieance  landscapes’  (McKay)
  30. 30. MigraHon  and  farming
  31. 31. MigraHon,  dissociaHon  and  the  geriatrificaHon  of   farming Age (1982/1983) Occupation categories % (N=275) Mean!! Median Farming 83,6 35,7 Casual wage work 5,1 Government employment Age (2008) %! (N = 232) Mean Median 35,0 51,7 54,8 58 42,1 39 12,5 39,3 39 3,6 34,2 35 11,2 38,5 37 Private employment 1,8 20,2 18 9,9 35,0 34 Entrepreneurs 0,7 37,5 37,5 9,1 39,9 36,5 Others 5,1 23,6 22 5,6 33,8 32 Ageing  farmers
  32. 32. GeriatrificaHon  of  farming  &  reproducHon  of  farm  household   (Average  age  of  household  heads  risen  from  47  to  60  years  old)
  33. 33. • • • • • • Mechanisa<on   Geriatrifica<on  of  farming   Disintensifica<on   Land  use  change   Cropping  changes  (transplant  –  broadcast  rice  culture)   Idle  land
  34. 34. In  Japan   • Average  size  of  farm  =  1.9  ha   • 85%  of  farmers  are  part-­‐<me   • Between  1960-­‐2004  number  of  farmers  dropped  from  12.2  million  to  2.2  million   • In  2009,  66,000  people  took  up  farming;  just  1,850  were  from  non-­‐farming   backgrounds   • The  average  age  of  farmers  exceeded  65  for  the  first  <me  in  2010  (65.8  years)   • In  many  areas,  just  10%  of  farmers  have  a  son/daughter  willing  to  take  over  the  farm
  35. 35. The  household  and  the  reproducHon  of  the   farm  household
  36. 36. Household  footprints,     Northeast  Thailand
  37. 37. Household  complexity,  Maharsarakham,  Thailand Demographic  characterisHcs 1982/83 2008 Baseline Re-­‐study Household  head  or  relaHonships  to  household  head  (%) Household  head  15.7                     Spouse  of  HH  head  13.6                     Child  of  household  head  54.2                     Spouse  of  child  of  HH  head  3.9                         Grandchild  of  HH  head  9.2                         Spouse  of  grandchild  of  HH  head 0.2                           Nephew/nieces  of  HH  head  0.2                         Parent  of  HH  head/spouse  1.0                         Sibling  of  HH  head/spouse  1.6                         Other  extended  family  members 0.4                          
  38. 38. Household  complexity,  Maharsarakham,  Thailand Demographic  characterisHcs 1982/83 2008 Baseline Re-­‐study Household  head  or  relaHonships  to  household  head  (%) Household  head  15.7                     21.3 Spouse  of  HH  head  13.6                     13.0 Child  of  household  head  54.2                     22.7 Spouse  of  child  of  HH  head  3.9                         8.8 Grandchild  of  HH  head  9.2                         21.3 Spouse  of  grandchild  of  HH  head 0.2                          0.0 Nephew/nieces  of  HH  head  0.2                         2.5 Parent  of  HH  head/spouse  1.0                         1.4 Sibling  of  HH  head/spouse  1.6                         2.2 Other  extended  family  members 0.4                          6.9
  39. 39. Two  issues:   1. What  is  ‘the  household’  (No  longer  a  co-­‐ residen<al  dwelling  unit)   2. How  will  the  farm  household  be   reproduced?
  40. 40. Mobility,  the  natal  village     and  the  middle  income  gap
  41. 41. Date  of  departure  of  first  and  second     generaHon  migrants,  Thailand 40 30 20 10 Source: survey, Nov-Dec 2012; n = 54 (1st generation migrants), n = 97 (2nd generation migrants) 2 -1 10 9 -0 05 4 00 -0 9 -9 95 4 -9 90 9 -8 85 4 -8 80 74 -7 9 0 1st genereation migrants 2nd generation migrants
  42. 42. First  generaHon  migrants  in   Bangkok,  circa  1990
  43. 43. Migrants  in  Bangkok  circa  1990 Second  generaHon  migrants   in  Bangkok  circa  2005
  44. 44. Migrants  in  Bangkok  circa  1990 Second  generaHon  migrants   in  Bangkok  circa  2005 MigraHon  and  return:  the   migrants  of  the  1980s  departed   as  sojourning  farmers;  the   migrants  of  the  2000s  depart  as   school  leavers  with  only  a   tenuous  link  to  farming  and  the   land
  45. 45. EducaHonal  status  of  first  and  second     generaHon  migrants  on  departure  (Thailand) 70% 60% 50% 1st generation 2nd generation 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% er te ca tifi n io at uc Ed lC na tio ca Vo er igh H ry da on ec y ar nd co Se S er pp U r we Lo y ar im Pr Source:  survey     Nov-­‐Dec  2012;  n=54  (first  genera<on  migrants)  and  n  =  97  (second  genera<on  migrants
  46. 46. MigraHon  signatures     Northeast  Thailand  1974-­‐2012 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Migrants Returnees Marriage Migrants Total Migrants (current & returning) Total Expected Returnees Permanent labour migrants
  47. 47. MigraHon  signatures     Northeast  Thailand  1974-­‐2012 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Migrants Returnees Marriage Migrants Total Migrants (current & returning) Total Expected Returnees Permanent labour migrants
  48. 48. MigraHon  signatures     Northeast  Thailand  1974-­‐2012 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Migrants Returnees Marriage Migrants Total Migrants (current & returning) Total Expected Returnees Permanent labour migrants
  49. 49. MigraHon  signatures     Northeast  Thailand  1974-­‐2012 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Migrants Returnees Marriage Migrants Total Migrants (current & returning) Total Expected Returnees Permanent labour migrants
  50. 50. MigraHon  signatures     Northeast  Thailand  1974-­‐2012 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 22  migrants  or  15%  of  total  were  permanent   out-­‐migrants   ! o 60%  of  first  generaHon  migrants  found   their  skills  of  liele  use  in  the  village   o 75%  of  second  generaHon  migrants  did  so Migrants Returnees Marriage Migrants Total Migrants (current & returning) Total Expected Returnees Permanent labour migrants
  51. 51. Precarity  in  Thailand:     the  formalisaHon  of  employment,  1980-­‐2000 100 80 60 40 20 0 12 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 08 20 07 20 06 20 05 20 00 20 95 19 90 19 85 19 80 19 Formal sector employment Informal sector employment
  52. 52. Precarity  in  Thailand:     the  informalisaHon  of  the  formal  sector,  1980-­‐2012 100 80 60 40 20 0 12 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 08 20 07 20 06 20 05 20 00 20 95 19 90 19 85 19 80 19 Formal sector employment Informal sector employment
  53. 53. What  is  ‘urban’?     The  urbane  villager
  54. 54. In  the  rural…  but  of  the  rural?     The  rural  as  socially  urban,  and  also  in   terms  of  ameni<es  and  iden<<es  –  being   urbane  in  the  rural
  55. 55. In  the  rural…  but  of  the  rural?   Thompson  (2007):  ‘socially  urban’   Keyes  (2010):  ‘rural  cosmopolitans’   Walker  (2012):  ‘middle  income  peasants’
  56. 56. The  cosmopolitan  peasant...?   “Northeastern  families  today  have   become  increasingly  ‘cosmopolitan’   because  they  are  linked  to  a  global  labor   force,  have  sophis<cated   understandings  of  Bangkok  society,  and   yet  s<ll  retain  long-­‐standing  resentment   for  being  looked  down  on  as  country   bumpkins”  (Keyes  2010:  2  ).

×