Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Rural-Urban Migration and Integration of Labor Market in India

62 views

Published on

Amitabh Kundu, Research and Information System for Developing Countries, New Delhi

Presented at the ReSAKSS-Asia conference “Agriculture and Rural Transformation in Asia: Past Experiences and Future Opportunities”. An international conference jointly organized by ReSAKSS-Asia, IFPRI, TDRI, and TVSEP project of Leibniz Universit Hannover with support from USAID and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) at the Dusit Thani Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand December 12–14, 2017.

Published in: Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Rural-Urban Migration and Integration of Labor Market in India

  1. 1. Rural-Urban Migration and Integration of Labor Market in India Amitabh Kundu Research and Information System for Developing Countries, New Delhi at ReSAKSS-Asia Conference: Agriculture and Rural Transformation in Asia Dec 12-15, 2017 , Bangkok
  2. 2. Percentage share of Different Sectors in Gross Value Added in India
  3. 3. Growth in agriculture sector in India
  4. 4. Annual growth in Agriculture Sector
  5. 5. Consumption of Different Types of Fertilizer in India in 1,00,000 Tonnes
  6. 6. Total Net Inter-State Migration for India (Economic Survey 2017)
  7. 7. Cohort based Inter-State Migration by Log of Per Capita Income (Economic Survey 2017)
  8. 8. States represented by their cohort level inter state migration during 1991-2001 and 2001-2011 (Economic Survey 2017)
  9. 9. Percentage Distribution 1991-01 2001- 2011 Total increase (in millions) 67.7 90.2 (a) Natural increase on base year pop and on inter-censal migrants 59.4 48.4 (b) Population of new towns less declassified towns 6.2 31.8 (c) Net RU migration 21.1 15.5 (d) Increase due to expansion in U Area and merging of towns 13.0 4.3 Table 1: Decomposition of Total Incremental Urban Population into Components
  10. 10. Table 2: Net Rural Urban Migrants Net Migrants = Migrants to urban areas from rural areas – Migrants to rural areas form urban areas Census years Net migrants to urban areas from rural areas during previous 10 years Migrants for all reasons Mig for employment reasons Persons Males Females Persons Males Females 1991 10681310 5648861 5032449 2889204 2596430 292774 2001 14328728 7726493 6602235 4905941 4524863 381078 2011 20702215 10322400 10379815 6441381 5742309 699072 Percentage change over previous census 2001 34.15 36.78 31.19 69.80 74.27 30.16 2011 44.48 33.60 57.22 31.30 26.91 83.45
  11. 11. Round (year) Rural Urban Male Female Male Female 64 (2007–2008) 5.4 (6.5) 47.7 (68.6) 25.9 (31.4) 45.6(57.9 55 (July99–Jun 2000)6.9 (9.0) 42.6 (64.5) 25.7 (32.0) 41.8(55.4 49 (Jan–June 1993) 6.5 40.1 23.9 38.2 43 (July87–Ju 1988) 7.4 39.8 26.8 39.6 38(January–Dec’83) 7.2 35.1 27.0 36.6 Migrants (%) in Rural and Urban Areas as per NSS Census Years 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Total 29.1 30.3 26.9 30.1 37.5 Male 17.5 17.2 14.7 17.0 22.6 Female 41.7 44.3 40.8 44.1 53.2 Table 3a Migrants (%) by Gender in population as per Census
  12. 12. Indicator Description Year Mean CV (%) x1 Percentage of Rural Migrants 1991 26.2 34.0 x2 Percentage of Urban Migrants 1991 35.3 32.6 x3 Percentage of Rural Migrants 2001 29.5 31.9 x4 Percentage of Urban Migrants 2001 39.8 28.1 x5 Percentage of Rural Migrants 2011 35.3 32.3 x6 Percentage of Urban Migrants 2011 49.7 22.2 x7 Percentage of Rural Migrants 1999-00 20.3 55.2 x8 Percentage of Urban Migrants 1999-00 28.6 56.0 x9 Percentage of Rural Migrants 2007-08 22.4 46.9 x10 Percentage of Urban Migrants 2007-08 31.9 43.6 x11 Migrants (%) for Work among Rural Migrants 2011 6.9 69.8 x12 Migrants (%) for Work among Urban Migrants 2011 18.3 33.2 x13 Migrants (%) for Business among Rural Migrants 2011 0.6 79.2 x14 Migrants (%) for Business among Urban Migrants 2011 2.3 77.7 x15 Interstate migrants (%) to total population 1991 6.1 127.8 x16 Net migrants (%) to total population 1991 1.6 430.4 x17 Interstate migrants (%) to total population 2001 6.9 125.6 x18 Net migrants (%) to total population 2001 2.7 288.1 x19 Interstate migrants (%) to total pop NSS 1999-00 4.0 130.4 Table 3(a): Indicators of Migration at State Level 1991-2011
  13. 13. Indic. Description Year Mean CV (%) x21 Gross Irrig Area to Gross Sown Area 2010-11 38.8 63.5 x22 Gross Irrig Area to Gross Sown Area 2013-14 41.1 61.3 x23 Per Hectare Fertilizer Consumption 2010-11 136.8 121.0 x24 Per Hectare Fertilizer Consumption 2014-15 115.4 68.1 x25 Per Hectare Yield of Total Food Grains 2010-11 2030.5 36.8 x26 Per Hectare Yield of Total Food Grains 2014-15 2204.3 32.7 x27 Credit Rs’000 of Com Banks/NSA hec. 2013 303.6 432.1 x28 Credit Dep Ratio of Rural Banks 2015 62.6 43.7 x29 Length of Road in Km per sq. km Area 2014-15 2.4 157.5 x30 Percentage of Poor in Rural Area 2011-12 22.1 52.6 Table 3(b): Indicators of Agricultural Dev at State Level 1991-2015
  14. 14. Indicators Description Year Mean CV (%) x31 Net State Domestic Prod at 2011-12 Prices 2011-12 80176.2 60.2 x32 NSDP at 2011-12 Prices 2014-15 89140.6 51.7 x33 Gross Value Added in Ind per Worker 2010-11 999567.9 96.9 x34 Gross Value Added in Ind per Worker 2014-15 1159966.7 75.5 x35 Gross Capital Format in Ind per Worker 2010-11 459443.5 74.9 x36 Gross Capital Format in Ind per Worker 2014-15 281261.7 83.1 x37 Medium & SSI Prod per Worker 2006-07 160015.8 77.1 x38 Per Capita availability of Power (KWH) 2014-15 935.2 64.5 x39 Credit Deposit Ratio of Com Banks 2015 59.3 46.2 x40 Credit to Ind Worker (Rs) by Com Banks 2014 3336412.7 328.8 x41 Percentage of Poor in Urban Area 2011-12 13.4 61.2 x42 Percentage of Urban Population 1991 27.0 61.5 x43 Percentage of Urban Population 2001 29.4 59.2 x44 Percentage of Urban Population 2011 34.2 52.9 x45 Percentage of Urban Population NSS 1999-00 27.3 57.5 x46 Percentage of Urban Population NSS 2007-08 30.0 59.0 Table 3(c): Ind. of Econ and Ind Dev at State Level 1991-2015
  15. 15. The AD curve represents a rectangular Hyperbola wherein the areas at all points (height X base) work out as same
  16. 16. x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 x29 x30 x1 .276 .277 .199 .201 .261 .353 .404* .412* .442* -.419* x2 -.079 -.090 -.068 -.101 .013 .102 .055 -.232 .026 -.328 x3 .258 .252 .359 .265 .277 .332 .410* .394* .481** -.303 x4 -.129 -.154 .036 -.064 .051 .109 .060 -.326 .088 -.195 x5 .133 .114 .334 .175 .296 .358* .191 .662** .336 -.429* x6 -.025 -.069 .103 .048 .135 .171 -.050 -.018 -.009 -.259 x7 .287 .233 .420* .415* .058 .035 -.304 .496* -.230 -.424* x8 .200 .142 .294 .310 .031 -.004 -.307 .200 -.260 -.440* x9 .375* .360 .261 .421* .209 .214 .233 .516** .235 -.434* x10 .165 .148 .166 .343 .072 .099 .160 .265 .169 -.395* x11 -.119 -.117 -.206 -.260 .100 .129 .530** -.407* .439* -.142 x12 -.126 -.104 -.194 -.107 -.130 -.068 .277 -.338 .095 -.012 x13 -.451* -.465** -.268 -.424* -.179 -.168 -.142 -.538** -.130 .178 x14 -.466** -.473** -.291 -.338 -.242 -.235 -.185 -.491** -.157 .250 x15 .320 .357 .289 .093 .379 .473* .786** .090 .771** -.262 x16 .260 .310 .086 -.054 .339 .433* .854** -.072 .834** -.062 x17 .304 .338 .286 .097 .381* .461* .741** .061 .735** -.254 x18 .195 .233 .165 .006 .307 .393* .780** .049 .756** -.180 x19 .358 .343 .751** .445* .232 .283 .013 .292 .115 -.378* Table 4(a) : Correlations of the Indicators of Migration & Agril Devment
  17. 17. x31 x32 x33 x34 x35 x36 x37 x38 x39 x40 x41 x42 x43 x44 x45 x46 x1 .646** .662** .227 .483* .142 .409* .459* .683** .346 .410* -.430* .381* .420* .425* .354 .457* x2 .450* .468* .609** .726** .316 .154 .282 .356 -.119 .067 -.364 -.198 -.133 -.115 -.183 -.093 x3 .786** .778** .235 .489** .017 .257 .577** .759** .282 .382* -.373* .578** .613** .624** .597** .639** x4 .542** .553** .491** .637** .105 .124 .379* .401* -.159 .065 -.361* .005 .068 .101 .065 .082 x5 .827** .764** .175 .422* -.084 .107 .617** .750** .195 .146 -.452* .456** .505** .588** .513** .513** x6 .635** .618** .437* .643** .113 .145 .447* .547** -.014 -.054 -.379* .016 .106 .158 .096 .130 x7 .223 .232 .141 .346 .162 .335 .515** .512** .391* -.380 -.358 -.059 -.046 -.002 .029 -.044 x8 .170 .190 .274 .386 .139 .147 .418* .366 .258 -.377 -.311 -.211 -.208 -.144 -.077 -.188 x9 .327 .432* .263 .399* .247 .414* .291 .498** .581** .256 -.390* .235 .219 .235 .235 .226 x10 .396* .468* .566** .632** .252 .264 .214 .380* .318 .173 -.354 .057 .044 .096 .118 .093 x11 .440* .537** .378* .322 -.167 -.182 .001 .115 -.001 .610** -.244 .322 .350 .395* .327 .379* x12 .234 .341 .484** .473** .359 .245 -.068 .132 .138 .349 -.188 .065 .101 .049 .094 .147 x13 -.036 -.074 .108 -.023 -.230 -.295 -.216 -.323 -.444* -.135 .036 -.160 -.135 -.084 -.164 -.182 x14 -.152 -.179 .124 .006 -.024 -.078 -.314 -.366* -.399* -.163 .140 -.340 -.326 -.301 -.358 -.396* x15 .676** .724** .148 .244 -.063 .063 .483* .576** .223 .751** -.249 .757** .772** .745** .733** .756** x16 .468* .506** -.193 -.051 -.093 .178 .294 .423* .270 .866** -.064 .772** .777** .719** .739** .784** x17 .722** .760** .193 .308 -.036 .084 .498** .606** .190 .707** -.256 .737** .758** .738** .725** .746** x18 .697** .740** .232 .321 .026 .156 .306 .509** .193 .791** -.240 .731** .755** .734** .680** .740** x19 .538** .513** .164 .322 -.041 .039 .876** .711** .144 -.097 -.381* .401* .421* .427* .487** .373 x20 .726** .794** .168 .267 -.051 .096 .490** .662** .375* .771** -.331 .821** .817** .815** .822** .799** Table 4(b) : Correlations of the Indic of Migration and Eco & Indt. Dev
  18. 18. Conclusions ana Policy Perspectives • Indicators of migration correlates positively with those reflecting agricultural, infrastructural (including road, electricity and credit) development • The correlations of migration with industrialisation and urban development are weak. This can be attributed to capital intensive industrial development and exclusionary urbanisation • Rural transformation, given the low rate of urbanisation and sluggish sectoral shift towards industries and services, will be challenging. The possibility of absorbing migrant labour within and outside agriculture in agriculturally developed regions must therefore not be dismissed.

×