Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
48
1Introduction
special article
Table 1: Urbanisation Scenario in Major Regions of the World and Countries in Asia
World
29.06
Africa
14.51
Sub-Saharan Africa
11.06
Europe
5
1.21
Latin Ame & Carri
41.35
Central America
42.74
South America
39.24
North America
63.90
Australia/New Zealand 76.16
Asia without China
16.77
Asia
19.22
Eastern Asia
16.47
China
13.00
Hong Kong, China
85.21
Macao, China
97.37
DPR Korea
31.00
Japan
34.85
Mongolia
19.97
Republic of Korea
21.35
South-Central Asia
16.44
Afghanistan
5.80
Bangladesh
4.28
Bhutan
2.38
India
17.04
Iran
27.55
Kazakhstan
36.36
Kyrgyzstan
26.49
Maldives
10.98
Nepal
2.67
Pakistan
17.52
Sri Lanka
15.33
Tajikistan
29.37
Turkmenistan
44.92
Uzbekistan
31.42
South-Eastern Asia
15.44
Brunei Darussalam
27.08
Cambodia
10.19
Indonesia
12.40
Lao PDR
7.22
Malaysia
20.36
Myanmar
16.16
Philippines
27.14
Singapore
99.41
Thailand
16.48
Timor-Leste
9.93
Vietnam
11.64
Western Asia
28.64
Armenia
42.54
Azerbaijan
42.47
Bahrain
63.79
Cyprus
28.34
Georgia
37.31
Iraq
35.13
Israel
70.99
Jordan
37.08
Kuwait
6
1.84
Lebanon
32.02
Palestine
37.31
Oman
8.55
Qatar
80.00
Saudi Arabia
21.31
Syrian Arab Republic
30.63
Turkey
24.77
United Arab Emirates
54.29
Yemen
5.79
1970
36.01
23.60
19.52
62.77
57.01
59.68
53.81
73.80
84.51
22.66
26.00
22.81
17.40
87.72
96.85
54.20
53.20
45.06
40.71
20.45
11.03
7.59
6.04
19.76
41.21
50.24
37.48
11.57
3.96
24.82
19.52
36.88
47.78
36.72
21.45
61.54
15.97
17.07
9.64
33.46
22.83
32.98
100.00
20.89
12.91
18.30
44.60
59.89
50.00
83.64
40.81
47.48
56.15
84.20
55.95
85.75
59.48
54.29
29.59
88.29
48.67
43.34
38.24
77.78
13.30
1990
2000
42.96 46.60
32.00 35.95
28.22 32.76
70.53 71.42
70.64 75.35
74.49 68.69
64.99 79.46
75.43 79.14
85.29 86.91
31.91 37.72
34.45 37.05
33.00 40.42
27.40 35.78
99.53 100.00
99.73 100.00
58.38 60.18
63.09 65.22
57.04 56.56
73.84 79.62
27.21 29.46
18.32 21.28
19.81 23.59
16.45 25.40
25.55 27.66
56.33 64.20
56.27 56.28
37.77 35.40
25.93 27.84
8.85 13.43
30.58 33.17
17.20 15.71
31.66 26.50
45.07 45.85
40.12 37.26
31.63 39.75
65.76 71.17
12.60 16.91
30.58 42.00
15.43 21.98
49.79 61.97
24.87 28.03
48.78 58.55
100.00 100.00
29.42 31.14
20.81 24.30
20.25 24.28
61.04 63.75
67.45 65.09
53.74 51.20
88.03 88.31
66.67 68.70
55.05 52.67
69.71 67.83
90.36 91.44
72.22 78.25
97.99 98.20
83.12 86.00
67.87 71.48
66.09 71.57
92.29 94.98
76.58 79.85
48.93 51.63
59.20 64.74
79.06 77.83
20.93 26.27
2005
48.58
37.89
35.00
71.92
77.52
81.78
70.16
80.73
87.86
39.74
39.41
44.48
40.42
100.00
100.00
61.59
65.96
56.72
80.79
30.63
22.90
25.67
30.93
28.70
66.94
57.10
35.80
33.90
15.76
34.88
15.14
26.40
47.32
36.68
44.09
73.53
19.73
48.14
27.38
67.61
30.65
62.71
100.00
32.30
26.05
26.41
65.04
64.05
51.53
88.41
69.38
52.47
66.90
91.62
78.30
98.30
86.59
71.58
71.48
95.48
80.98
53.19
67.28
77.73
28.93
2025
57.23
47.19
45.20
76.21
83.51
87.39
76.17
85.67
90.87
51.06
48.54
59.20
56.87
100.00
100.00
70.15
71.09
63.14
85.24
39.65
32.74
37.35
52.26
37.17
76.03
64.47
42.85
56.69
27.15
46.25
18.84
31.07
57.43
42.87
58.74
80.99
33.21
65.90
48.96
80.51
44.64
74.58
100.00
42.24
36.40
38.08
70.74
66.95
57.34
90.02
74.66
57.59
68.60
92.60
80.78
98.65
89.36
75.58
74.71
96.73
85.24
61.38
75.91
81.24
41.69
Economic & Political Weekly EPW november 28, 2009 vol xliv no 48
2030
1950-70
1970-90
59.69
50.02
48.17
77.84
84.65
77.71
88.29
86.68
91.47
51.53
54.13
62.40
60.33
100.00
100.00
72.36
72.98
65.67
86.26
43.02
36.23
41.04
56.17
40.60
77.86
66.84
46.16
60.83
30.61
49.80
21.40
34.12
60.43
46.15
61.84
82.35
36.98
68.94
53.08
82.21
48.39
76.69
100.00
45.77
39.89
41.77
72.51
69.06
60.05
90.63
76.42
60.18
70.48
93.06
81.97
98.71
90.05
77.23
76.35
96.90
86.24
63.99
77.73
82.45
45.35
1.59
2.99
3.34
2.37
3.16
2.95
3.42
2.32
2.68
1.95
1.87
2.02
1.72
1.08
-0.93
4.84
3.77
5.95
4.64
1.33
3.50
3.04
4.85
0.91
3.06
2.85
2.54
0.30
2.03
2.20
1.46
1.70
0.58
1.18
2.01
7.30
2.58
1.87
1.58
3.38
2.14
1.39
3.57
1.46
1.48
2.65
3.48
3.51
1.52
5.33
2.78
2.09
4.30
3.89
3.84
6.56
5.68
3.45
7.51
3.17
6.27
2.75
3.16
5.40
4.57
1.46
1.47
1.51
1.74
1.80
2.10
1.76
1.73
1.91
1.98
2.42
2.15
2.10
2.13
2.18
1.75
0.43
0.46
1.12
1.26
2.98
2.39
2.40
1.92
1.88
2.33
1.67
1.58
1.54
1.57
3.40
2.81
2.87
2.17
2.07
0.43
2.12
2.07
1.78
1.76
0.30
1.36
1.48
1.59
1.57
2.01
1.42
1.42
1.86
1.97
2.35
2.28
2.28
2.29
2.33
2.56
3.20
3.24
2.97
2.91
2.92
3.89
3.91
3.32
3.23
16.91
12.45
0.85
0.74
0.89
1.91
1.96
2.04
0.92
0.84
1.19
1.33
2.41
-0.20
-0.09
1.34
1.51
7.07
3.25
2.66
1.59
1.60
1.87
1.10
1.11
1.99
2.15
2.96
1.87
1.87
2.47
2.59
5.50
2.23
2.23
2.73
2.80
5.60
5.48
5.48
4.47
4.21
1.66
1.08
1.06
1.93
2.12
3.05
3.29
3.00
2.25
2.21
1.21
0.00
0.23
1.55
1.66
0.06
-1.02
-0.57
1.48
1.72
4.92
0.97
2.55
4.69
4.43
4.29
4.69
4.37
3.45
3.43
1.44
1.20
1.30
2.37
2.47
-0.78
-1.08
-1.01
1.32
1.69
-1.16
-2.51
-1.71
1.14
1.47
-0.55
0.31
0.60
2.03
2.12
0.72
-1.21
-0.97
1.29
1.57
2.64
3.55
3.56
2.95
2.88
0.91
2.51
2.46
2.14
2.08
-1.38
3.45
3.56
3.52
3.48
3.80
4.97
4.97
3.67
3.49
2.68
4.34
4.84
4.67
4.39
3.40
4.97
4.96
3.41
3.18
0.56
1.62
1.92
3.01
3.01
3.30
3.94
3.79
2.78
2.68
1.87
2.87
2.41
0.83
0.74
2.28
0.81
0.90
2.13
2.28
2.86
2.00
1.95
2.43
2.53
0.63
2.33
2.30
2.69
2.77
3.33
1.15
1.14
1.31
1.40
1.64
-1.06
-1.01
0.64
0.90
0.75
-1.02
-0.59
1.17
1.38
1.82
0.26
0.24
0.84
0.95
5.32
0.93
0.83
1.31
1.43
1.52
-0.96
-0.69
1.04
1.26
2.93
-0.87
-0.86
0.39
0.67
2.83
1.30
1.02
0.68
0.82
3.58
3.25
2.19
0.76
0.93
10.47
1.13
1.11
1.17
1.14
6.05
2.21
1.80
1.32
1.35
2.88
1.71
1.17
1.03
1.19
7.67
2.56
1.68
0.82
1.01
2.31
4.57
3.78
1.69
1.57
6.19
1.92
1.76
1.53
1.55
1.13
1.08
1.14
1.68
1.79
4.26
2.35
2.33
2.13
2.12
0.38
-0.73
-0.52
1.08
1.19
2.73
2.97
2.87
2.81
2.85
1990-2000
1990-05
2005-25
2005-30
2000-30
1.76
1.93
2.15
1.14
1.97
1.54
2.22
1.80
1.60
1.88
2.32
2.98
3.35
1.83
1.22
1.28
1.58
1.97
2.48
2.71
4.42
1.94
2.24
1.49
1.49
4.64
3.48
2.31
1.26
1.21
1.97
1.22
3.00
2.12
3.53
3.73
4.64
3.47
2.93
2.82
0.86
2.08
2.42
2.68
1.35
0.60
1.20
0.83
1.30
1.02
0.41
0.76
0.78
1.13
1.29
1.01
0.83
1.68
1.53
1.70
2.14
0.97
2.82
49
speciAl article
50
special article
Table 2: Urban Centres and Their Shares in Total Urban Population in Different Size Categories
World, Region and Size Class
World
5 million or more
1 to 5 million
500,000 to 1 million
Below 500,000
Asia
5 million or more
1 to 5 million
500,000 to 1 million
Below 500,000
Eastern Asia
5 million or more
1 to 5 million
500,000 to 1 million
Below 500,000
South-Central Asia
5 million or more
1 to 5 million
500,000 to 1 million
Below 500,000
Region and Size Class
South-Eastern Asia
5 million or more
1 to 5 million
500,000 to 1 million
Below 500,000
Western Asia
5 million or more
1 to 5 million
500,000 to 1 million
Below 500,000
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Percentage of urban population
18
11.2
163
20.9
237
11
56.9
24
12.6
196
21
258
10.3
56.1
28
13
223
21
297
10.3
55.7
30
12.9
267
22.2
328
9.9
55.1
34
13.2
296
22.4
365
10
54.4
44
14.9
334
22.3
399
9.7
53.1
49
15.4
361
22.5
446
9.9
52.3
53
15.5
414
23.5
477
9.5
51.5
59
16
460
23.8
488
8.9
51.3
67
16.6
495
23.6
521
8.7
51.2
75
17
524
23.1
551
8.5
51.3
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Percentage of urban population
7
12.4
73
25.6
93
11.5
50.5
13
16
84
22.5
110
11.1
50.3
16
16.6
98
21.5
128
10.7
51.2
18
16.4
125
22.4
145
9.9
51.3
20
16.3
145
22.8
166
9.8
51.1
26
18.1
166
22.4
192
9.8
49.8
28
18
182
22.5
223
10.1
49.5
30
17.8
216
23.6
239
9.5
49.1
34
18.3
245
23.9
247
8.8
49
38
18.7
274
24.1
262
8.3
49
41
18.8
291
23.7
275
8.1
49.4
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Percentage of urban population
5
22.1
42
28.5
53
14.8
34.5
6
21.8
50
28.2
54
12.8
37.2
7
20.8
57
27.4
66
12.9
38.9
7
18.3
72
29
79
12.3
40.3
9
18.7
82
28.7
93
12.4
40.2
11
19.8
92
29.1
110
12.9
38.2
11
18.4
101
29.4
118
12.5
39.6
11
17.4
117
31
124
11.8
39.8
13
17.8
131
31.5
123
10.7
40
14
17.6
148
32.6
113
9.1
40.6
16
18
158
32.4
108
8.2
41.4
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Percentage of urban population
2
7.7
14
17.4
28
9.6
65.3
5
14
12
11.3
45
13
61.7
5
13.6
18
13.8
49
12.1
60.5
7
16.9
29
14.7
44
9.2
59.3
7
16.7
35
16.4
48
8.9
58
10
20.6
42
15.5
50
8
55.9
11
21.8
49
16.8
63
8.7
52.7
13
23.3
58
17
68
8.1
51.6
13
22.6
65
17.9
76
8.1
51.4
15
23.5
73
17.5
92
8.3
50.6
15
22.9
79
17.9
105
8.6
50.6
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Percentage of urban population
0
0
9
34.4
6
5.9
59.7
2
13
10
24.8
6
4.4
57.8
3
16.9
10
18.4
8
4.6
60.1
3
15.8
11
17.4
9
4.3
62.5
3
14
12
16.1
12
4.6
65.3
3
11.9
14
15.4
14
4.4
68.2
4
12.7
13
12.1
17
4.9
70.3
4
11.9
17
13
23
5.5
69.6
5
13.1
21
12.8
22
4.6
69.5
6
14.2
23
12
28
5
68.7
7
15.2
22
10.5
31
5.3
68.9
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Number of agglomerations
Percentage of urban population
Percentage of urban population
0
0
8
28.9
6
9.7
61.4
0
0
12
34.5
5
5.7
59.8
1
7
13
27.5
5
4.3
61.2
1
7
13
26.2
13
9.2
57.6
1
7.1
16
28.2
13
8.7
56
2
11.4
18
26.4
18
10
52.3
2
10.9
19
27.6
25
12.8
48.7
2
10.6
24
31.3
24
11.1
46.9
3
13.5
28
31
26
10.3
45.1
3
13.2
30
31.8
29
10.5
44.5
3
12.7
32
32.4
31
10.5
44.4
Economic & Political Weekly EPW november 28, 2009 vol xliv no 48
51
speciAl article
in urban growth and URGD in the region and whole of Asia. Southeastern Asia stands alone in recording reasonably high URGD during the entire period, the average figure going up from 2.5% during 1950-90 to 3.5% during 1990-2000. The immigration rate of
foreign nationals can be seen as high during the 1990s. It may be
noted that economic growth in most of the countries6 in the region
was not adversely affected, despite the economic crisis during the
1990s which explains their high URGD.
52
special article
migration in a cross-sectionally and temporally comparable manner. Whether this is because of the low priority attached to it or
difficulties in gathering the information due to inherent reporting bias, the outcome has tragically been that the subject has received little importance in research agenda and policymaking.
Despite the number of persons moving within the countries being much larger than any other type of movement in Asia, it has
not figured in mainstream reports on development, such as the
Human Development or the World Development Report. There
has been an upsurge of interest in international migration and of
late, an enormous amount of literature has come up. And yet,
migration within countries, particularly that linked to search
for livelihood, has failed to motivate the researchers and
policymakers to generate robust data sets and undertake rigorous empirical studies, which may be held responsible for the
lack of integration of spatial mobility of labour with mainstream
development economics.
The data problems on mobility of persons have been quite constraining in research and yet this does not explain the continued
lack of attention to this phenomenon over the years (Haan 2005).
Information available from national statistical agencies in most
Asian countries are indeed inadequate in capturing temporary
movements. Consequently, the scholars working on internal mobility have chosen to work with field data. Micro level studies focused on a region, a sector or an issue, understandably, have limitations in putting forward a macro perspective. Researchers
nonetheless have attempted to combine the national statistics
with information and impressions gathered through field studies
for developing a macro perspective on migration and its correlates, which have often turned out to be a bit nave and even dangerous. Governmental interest in internal migration, surfacing
sporadically, has to a great extent been politically driven more
often guided by an alarmist framework. Understandably, this
has led to measures to control inflow of people for security concerns or to reduce pressure on limited amenities in the destination regions/cities. In the absence of rigorous data on the subject, this negative perspective has often guided not only the
research framework but also data generation process and
empirical findings.
Researchers regretting the inadequacies in the official statis
tical system10 and non-comparability of information collected
through micro studies have surprisingly come around to the conclusion that internal migration within Asian countries is high and
increasing over time. Probing data availability in some detail and
overviewing the research studies in four Asian countries India,
China, Indonesia and Vietnam, Deshingkar (2006) argues that
there is persuasive evidence from locations across Asia that population mobility has increased at an unprecedented rate in the
last two decades, the proposition getting endorsement of the
Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2006) as well. The studies
on Vietnam (Guest 1998; Djamba et al 1999) underline the problem of seasonal and temporary migrants into urban areas and
rapidly industrialising zones that are not captured in the census.
The scholars, nonetheless, are happy to stipulate that given the
current development patterns and future projections on
urbanisation, the growth of manufacturing and agricultural
Economic & Political Weekly EPW november 28, 2009 vol xliv no 48
development, it is very likely that internal migration, both temporary and permanent, will persist and grow. A similar perspective dominates the urban development scene in Pakistan despite
research studies revealing that that there are blind spots in the
data and that rural populations are less able to fill the demand in
urban labour markets resulting in a reduction in out-migration
from rural areas (Rolfe 2008).
53
speciAl article
54
He argues that peri-urban areas in the hinterland have experienced rapid economic growth as that is the easiest environment
in which new communities and manufacturing structures can be
built, absorbing large number of migrants. In addition, large
segments of the existing poor living in urban cores are being
pushed to the periphery by land market forces or drawn there by
employment opportunities. Informal activities of the poor along
with other pollutant industries are being shifted out to the
degenerated periphery. All these have led to the expansion in
the boundaries of agglomerations and merging of old and new
towns with the central city. This phenomenon has become conspicuous around the global cities in China, India and in many
other countries in this continent. Much of urbanisation in Indonesia is noted to be occurring through outward spread of large
cities enveloping rural communities because of the extremely
high rural densities. This has been noted to be an important factor in the rice growing areas of Vietnam and Thailand as well
(Webster 2004). In case of Seoul, most of the environmentally
hazardous industries are getting relocated in its periphery. Istanbul, too, has serious problems of degenerated periphery largely
because of in-migration of people from the south-east of Turkey,
particularly Anatolia, searching for employment. There seems to
be thus no reason why the expansion of city boundaries, the third
component in the decomposition model, would have declined in
the recent past or would do so in the near future.
special article
55
speciAl article
56
special article
Economic & Political Weekly EPW november 28, 2009 vol xliv no 48
57
speciAl article
4 This event is a consequence of rapid urbanisation
in the last decades, especially in less developed
regions United Nations (2008).
5 Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Cyprus, Turkey and Lebanon may be mentioned as illustrative cases.
6 Indonesia, Thailand and Timor-Leste are the exceptions. Indonesia did not even record a high
rate of international migration during the 1990s.
7 This can be explained in terms of the rapid growth
in the number and population in large cities in
China occurring as a result of the governments emphasis on urban development at higher end after
1949, and the reform measures adopted since mid1970s. Understandably, the 22 most populous cities
had a total of 47.5 million people or about 12% of
the countrys total urban population in 1985.
8 A recent study (Webster 2004) focusing on South
East Asian countries, particularly China, Indonesia, Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam and Mongolia reports the annual population growth rate in
many of the small towns as very low and even
negative. In case of Mongolia, the rate has been
noted to be negative, with virtually all dynamism focusing on Ulaan Baatar. In Philippines,
only natural growth and migration have been
considered as factors behind urban growth with
exclusion of the contribution of new towns.
9 In India, these towns are finding it difficult to
finance any of their development projects through
internal resources or borrowings from the capital
market in the era of globalisation. The fiscal discipline imposed by the government, credit rating
agencies and other financial intermediaries, make
it impossible for these even to maintain the level
of services. As a consequence, the absolute
number of these (Census) towns have gone down
in 2001, the first time in the century.
10 Rogaly et al (2001) hold that while in Vietnam
and China, the formal registration system is likely
to miss out migrants employed in the grey economy, in India where such registration system does
not exist, short duration rural-rural migration is
likely to be under-recorded.
11 East West Centre, Kundu (2003).
12 If the south-east Asian region (with 11 countries)
is excluded, the number goes down to 25 only.
13 Besides these, researchers have projected as early
as 1994, that China had a surplus of approximately
200 million agricultural workers, and the number
was expected to increase to 300 million in the early
21st century. Current projections suggest that between 12 and 13 million migrants will move to
urban areas each year over the next two decades.
This will be over and above the existing 103 million
urban migrants, as officially reported (Fang 2000).
14 Indonesian government had declared Jakarta a
special metropolitan district in 1966, which had
attracted a huge inflow of population, resulting in
Jakarta urban agglomeration growing into the
adjacent province of West Java, known as Jabotabek. The population of Jabotabek region was
about 25 million in 2000 despite the government
adopting strong measures to control the growth
of population, launched in early 1970s by prohibiting the entry of unemployed migrants.
15 In case of women, the percentage of migrants has
gone up marginally as this is determined by sociocultural factors that respond slowly with time.
16 This argument finds support in the works of
Weiner (1990).
17 During the Japanese occupation (1942-44), Indonesian workers were forcefully sent to Singapore
and Thailand to be used in the construction of
railroads and airports (Kurosawa 1993).
18 Tirtosudarmo (1997) holds that the geographical
stretch for labour migration was very extensive
before the advent of colonialism, particularly in
south-east Asia, as there were no rigid national
state borders as is the case today.
19 The Dutch, for example, recruited people from
the island of Java during the colonial period to
work as plantation workers in the coastal areas of
East Sumatra, in New Caledonia in the south
58
References
Adam, A W (1994): Pengiriman buruh migrant Jawa ke
Vietnam tahun 1900 an (The Sending of Javanese
Workers to Vietnam in the 1900s), Sejarah, 5:1-6.
Anh, Dang Nguyen (2003): Internal Migration Policies in
the ESCAP Region, Asia Pacific Journal, September.
Appleyard, R (1991): International Migration:
Challenges for the Nineties (Geneva: Inter
national Orgnisation for Migration).
Breman, J (1997): Menjinakaran Sang Kuli: Politik Kolonial Pada awal abad ke-20 (Exploiting Workers:
Colonial Politics at the Beginning of the 20th Century) (Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafitidaan
Perwakilan KITLV).
Chan, Kam Wing and Ying Hu (2003): Urbanisation
in China in the 1990s: New Definition, Different
Series, and Revised Trends, The China Review,
Vol 3, No 2.
Collier, W L, K Santoso and R Wibowo (1993): New
Approach to Rural Development in Java: Twenty Five
Years of Village Studies in Java (Jakarta: BPS).
Dang, A (1999): Market Reforms and Internal Labour
Migration in Vietnam, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, Vol 8, No 3.
Deshingkar, Priya (2006): Internal Migration, Poverty and Development in Asia, proceedings of the
conference on ASIA 2015 Promoting Growth,
Ending Poverty, London, 6-7 March.
Djamba, Y, A Goldstein and S Goldstein (1999): Permanent and Temporary Migration in Viet Nam
during a Period of Economic Change, Asia-
PacificPopulation Journal, Vol 14, No 3.
Ellerman, D (2003): Policy Research on Migration
and Development, Policy Research Working
Paper No 3117 (Washington DC: World Bank).
Fang, Cai (2000): The Invisible Hand and Visible
Feet: Internal Migration in China, Working Paper
Series No 5, December.
Fan, Shenggen (2008): Public Expenditures, Growth
and Poverty in Developing Countries: Lessons
from Developing Countries, Issue Briefs 51,
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Guest, P (1998): The Dynamics of Internal Migration in
Vietnam, UNDP Discussion Paper 1, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Haan, Arjan de (2005): Migration in the Development Studies Literature: Has It Come Out of
Marginality?, Department for International
Development, Paper for UNU-WIDER Jubilee
Conference on Future of Development Econo
mics: Realising the Potential for Poverty
Re duction.
Harris, J and M Todaro (1970): Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector Analysis,
American Economic Review, Vol 60, No 1.
Hugo, Graeme (2003): Urbanisation in Asia: An
Overview, paper presented at the Conference on
African Migration in Comparative Perspective,
Johannesburg, South Africa, 4-7 June.
Kundu, A (2003): Urbanisation and Urban Governance: Search for a Perspective beyond Neo-Liberalism, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 38, No 29.
(2006): Globalisation and the Emerging Urban
Structure: Regional Inequality and Population
Mobility, India: Social Development Report
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
(2009): Urbanisation and Migration: An Analysis of Trend, Pattern and Policies in Asia, Human
Development Research Paper 2009/16, United
Nations Development Programme.
Kundu, A and D Kundu (2009): Globalisation and Exclusionary Urban Growth in Asian Countries in
R Kanbur and B Guha Khasnobis (ed.), Development in An Urban World (Helsinki: UNU-WIDER
Series).
Kurosawa, Aiko (1993): Mobilisasi dan kontrol: studi tentang perubahan sosial di pedesaan Jawa 1942-45
(Mobility and Control: A Study on Social Changes in
Rural Java, 1942-1945) (Jakarta: Grasindo).
Munir, Rozy (2001): Population of Indonesia, Year
2002, Toward Second Millennium (Jakarta: The
National Population Council).
Overseas Development Institute (2006): ODI Annual
Report 2006, Source: www.odi.org.uk/resources/
odi-publications/annual-report/
Papademetriou, D and P Martin (1991): Labour Migra
tion and Development: Research and Policy Issues
in D Papademetriou and P Martin (ed.), The Unsettled Relationship: Labour Migration and Economic
Development (West Port: Greenwood Press).
Piel, G (1997): The Urbanisation of Poverty Worldwide, Challenge, Vol 10, February.
Rakesh Mohan and S Dasgupta (2005): The 21st Century: Asia Becomes Urban, Economic & Political
Weekly, Vol 15, January.
Rogaly, B, J Biswas, C Daniel, R Abdur, R Kumar and
A Sengupta (2001): Seasonal Migration, Social
Change and Migrants Rights, Lessons from West
Bengal, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 36, No 49.
Rolfe, Ella (2008): Farangi in Town: Modern Migration, Daily Times, 7 July, Pakistan.
Sheikh, Khatibullah (2007): Emerging Patterns of
Urbanisation in the GCC Countries (Delhi:
Academic Excellence).
Sorensen, N N, N Van Hear and P Engberg-Pedersen
(2003): The Migration-Development Nexus: Evidence and Policy Options in Van Hear, N N N Sorensen (eds.), The Migration-Development Nexus
(Geneva: United Nations and International
Organisation for Migration).
Suparlan, Parsudi (1995): The Javanese in Suriname:
Ethnicity in an Ethnicity Plural Society (Tempe:
Arizona State University Programme for SouthEast Asian Studies).
Tirtosudarmo, Riwanto (1997): Economic Development, Migration and Ethnic Conflict in Indonesia:
A Preliminary Observation, Soujorn, Vol 12, No 2.
UN Habitat (2009): The State of the Worlds Cities
Report (Nairobi: UN Habitat).
United Nations (2005): The World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2002 Revision, Population Division,
New York.
(2009): The World Urbanisation Prospects: The
2007 Revision, Population Division, New York.
Webster, Douglas Richard (2004): Urbanisation
Dy namics and Policy Frameworks in Developing
East Asia, World Bank, East Asia Urban Working
Paper Series.
Weiner, Myron (1990): Security, Stability, and International Migration, MIT SSP Working Paper,
(Cambridge, United States: MIT Centre for International Studies).
Westendoff, David G (2008): Security of Housing
Tenure in Peoples Republic of China: Background,
Trends and Issues in Darshini Mahadevia (ed.),
Inside the Transforming Urban Asia: Processes,
Policies and Public Actions (New Delhi: Concept
Publishing Co).
Yeung, Y M (1986): Controlling Metropolitan Growth
in Eastern Asia, Geographical Review, Vol 76, No 2.
(1995): Globalisation and Its Impact on Urban
Development in South East Asia and Vietnam,
UMP-Asia Occasional Paper, No 22.
november 28, 2009 vol xliv no 48 EPW Economic & Political Weekly