Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce PDF

Does Employment-Related Migration
Reduce Poverty in India?
Sanjay K.Mohanty, Sandhya Rani

Mohapatra, Anshul Kastor, Ajeet
K.Singh & Bidhubhusan Mahapatra
Journal of International Migration
and Integration
ISSN 1488-3473
Int. Migration & Integration
DOI 10.1007/s12134-015-0436-y
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.
1 23
Author's personal copy

Int. Migration & Integration
DOI 10.1007/s12134-015-0436-y
Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce Poverty

in India?
Sanjay K. Mohanty 1,4 & Sandhya Rani Mohapatra 2 &
Anshul Kastor 2 & Ajeet K. Singh 2 &
Bidhubhusan Mahapatra 3
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Using the unit data from the 64th round of the National Sample Surveys,
200708 on employment, unemployment, and migration, covering 125,578 households, this paper estimates the level, depth, and severity of poverty among nonmigrants and intra-state migrants, inter-state migrants, and emigrants in India. Based
on the out-migration of any members of the household for employment at place of
origin and using place of last residence definition, households are classified into intrastate migrants, inter-state migrant, emigrants, and non-migrant households. Economic
well-being of migrants households at the place of origin is measured by consumption
expenditure (income). A set of poverty indices, the poverty headcount ratio, poverty
gap ratio, and square poverty gap, are estimated from the household consumption
expenditure to measure the level, depth, and severity of poverty among migration
categories. The official state-specific poverty line is used in estimating the poverty
* Sanjay K. Mohanty
sanjayiips@yahoo.co.in; smohanty@hsph.harvard.edu
Sandhya Rani Mohapatra
sandhyamahapatro@gmail.com
Anshul Kastor
anshulkastor@gmail.com
Ajeet K. Singh
aksingh2789@gmail.com
Bidhubhusan Mahapatra
bidhubhushan.mahapatra@icimod.org
1
Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, 9 Bow Street, Cambridge,
MA 02138, USA
International Institute for Population Sciences, Govandi Station Road, Deonar,

Mumbai 400088, India
ICIMOD, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal
International Institute for Population Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai 400088, India

S.K. Mohanty et al.
indices. Descriptive analyses and logistic regression analyses are used in the analyses.
Results suggest that the level, depth, and severity of poverty among migrant households
is lower than that among non-migrant households; however, it varies across migrant
categories. The poverty head count ratio was 41 % among inter-state migrants, 31 %
among intra-state migrants, 20 % among emigrants, and 39 % among non-migrants in
India. The poverty gap ratio and squared poverty gap were highest among inter-state
migrants. Two broad patterns emerge from the state level analyses. Barring Kerala and
Punjab that have a higher percentage of emigrants, inter-state migration accounts for a
larger share of employment-related migration from the less developed states of Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha while intra-state migration accounts for a larger share in the developed states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka,
and Tamil Nadu. Second, the level, depth, and severity of inter-state migrants from less
developed states is higher than that of intra-state migrants and non-migrants; however,
the pattern is reversed in the more developed states of India. Adjusting for socioeconomic correlates, the odds of poor among intra-state migrants are lower than those
among inter-state migrants households. The study supports the proposition that migration and remittances in India are not panacea to structural development constraints
and that poor long-distance migrants need to be integrated in poverty alleviation
programs.
Keywords Intra-state migrants . Inter-state migrants . Remittances . Poverty . India
Introduction
Migration for employment is closely watched at the global, national, and regional
level. While emigration is limited and governed by country-specific policies,
internal migration is less restricted and contextual. Though the Indian
Constitution with a federal structure allows migration among and within the states
of India, the inter-state migration is a subject of constant debate and discussion.
The increasing inter-state migration, diversity in the sociocultural set up, and rising
inter-state inequalities in the level of socioeconomic development intensify the
migration and poverty debate in India. While it is argued that the inter-state
migration in India is poverty driven, there is no nationally representative study
in support of the hypothesis. This research is motivated to provide empirical
evidences on the level, depth, and severity of poverty among migration categories
at the place of origin in India.
The interaction of migration, poverty, and inequality are routinely featured in the
migration theories and models, migration and development debates, and in empirical
research. Migration theories and models explain the economic motive of migration
including wage differentials, unemployment, poverty, and minimization of economic
risks (Harris and Todaro 1870; Lee 1966; Lewis 1954; Ravenstein 1885; Stark and
Bloom 1985; Todaro 1969). While discussing the negative impact of migration, the
pessimists view migration as a vicious circle that perpetuates underdevelopment,
increases regional disparities and inequalities and aggravates poverty among nonmigrants (Frank 1966; Lipton 1980; Reichert 1981; Rubenstein 1992); the optimists
attribute increase in the marginal productivity of labor, flow of capital, and increasing

wage rate at place of origin to migration (Beijer 1970; Keely and Tran 1989;
Penninx 1982). A systematical review of migration and development debate has
been documented elsewhere (Haas 2010). On the other hand, migration and
poverty linkages are context specific (Haan 2011). The impact of heterogeneity
and the non-deterministic nature of migration on the development suggests that
remittances reduce poverty to a limited extent (Haas 2010; Taylor 1999).
Empirical research on the dynamics of use of international remittances
(Adams and Page 2005; Airola 2007; Banerjee et al. 2002; Castaldo and
Reilly 2007; Cox-Edwards and Oreggia 2009).; De and Ratha 2012; Mohanty
et al. 2014; Rapoport and Docquier 2006) is gaining increasing attention in
recent years. However, understanding the relationship of poverty and migration
is handicapped by data constraints, measurement issues, and the endogeneity of
variables (Adams and Page 2005; Rosenzweig and Stark 1989; Sabates-Wheeler
et al. 2008; Skeldon 1997).
Empirical studies largely suggests that migration increases the income and
well-being of left-behind households through remittances, contributes positively
to household development, and reduces the level of poverty (Adams and Page
1991, 2005; Sabates-Wheeler et al. 2008). Remittances account for 14.7 % of
the total income of poor households and have reduced the poverty level by
9.8 % in rural Egypt (Adams 1993). On the contrary, it is argued that if the
supply of labor exceeds the demand for labor in potential destinations (Skeldon
1997), migrant may not find employment which may further lead to further
impoverishment (Mosse et al. 2002; Nord 1998; Skeldon 1997). The benefits
from migration are likely to be least at the bottom of the income hierarchy and
in cases of bonded labor, migration may reinforce conditions of bondage
(Mosse et al. 2002).
A large body of literature in India has examined the level, pattern, and characteristics
of migrants, their decision to migrate and has drawn inference on the economic wellbeing of migrants in a broader context (Haan 1997; Keshri and Bhagat 2012; Kundu
1997; Mahapatro 2012; Mitra and Murayama 2009). Kundu and Sarangi (2007)
examined migration, employment, and poverty status in urban centers and found that
lower level of poverty among migrants was lower than that among non-migrants. The
correlation coefficient of out-migration rate was positive and significant with income
(state level), but weak with poverty level (Bhagat 2010). Using data from the 55th
round of NSSO (19992000), studies show that migrants have a higher economic status
compared to non-migrants in India (Arjan and Dubey 2006; Joe et al. 2009). Income
generated from migration constitutes a major source of household income (Dayal and
Karan 2003; Murthy et al. 2004; Narain et al. 2008). Migration does help the poor at the
place of destination, make productive investments, and avert falling into poverty
(Deshingkar and Akter 2009; Mehta and Shah 2003). A case study on labor migration,
remittances, and poverty in some villages of Uttarakhand shows that the number of
migrant households falling below poverty line declines by 48 % after migration (Jain
2010). Studies also attributed inter-village marriage migration to reduction in household variability in food consumption and mitigation of income risk (Rosenzweig and
Stark 1989). Highlighting the negative impacts of migration, studies show that migration is likely to increase inequalities, and internal migration from poorer areas signifies
a form of safety valve (Lipton 1980). Micro-level evidences show that migration does

S.K. Mohanty et al.
not lead to economic or social improvement. In tribal Western India, the benefits from
migration were least and in cases of bonded labor, migration reinforces conditions of
bondage (Mosse et al. 2002). Migration and breakdown of family support mechanism
increases vulnerability and chronic poverty among left-behind elderly households in
India (Mehta and Shah 2003). Estimates show that children under 14 year may
constitute one third of all migrants, thus potentially contributing to increased child
labor, and gaps in education, thereby transmitting poverty across generations (Smita
2008). The key predictors of rural-urban migration are mainly from the surplus labor
states in India (Dubey et al. 2006). Studies also suggests that poverty-induced migration
is a less important component of migration over time (Kundu and Saraswati 2012).
Increasing migration and reduction in poverty are related at the local, national, and
global levels. Globally, the estimated number of international migrants was 154 million
in 1990, which increased to 232 million by 2013 ((http://www.un.org/en/development/
desa/population/migration/data/index.shtml), and the percentage of population living
below $1.25 decreased from 43 % in 1990 to 21 % in 2010 (World Bank 2015). The
pattern is similar among developing countries including India. The migration rate in
India increased from 24.8 % in 199394 to 29 % by 200708 (National Sample Survey
(NSS), 200708), and the percentage of the population living below poverty line has
declined from 44 % in 199394 to 22 % by 201112 (Planning Commission 2013).
Though there has been increasing research on the levels, patterns, and determinants of
migration in India, there is no systematic attempt to explore the relationship between
poverty and migration in all the states of India. In this context, the present paper
attempts to explore the migration-poverty linkage at the household level by providing
an empirical estimation of level, depth, and severity of poverty at the place of origin by
type of migrants and non-migrant households in India.
Aim and Rationale

The aim of this paper is to estimate the extent of money-metric poverty among migrants
and non-migrant households in India. Specifically, it explores the level, depth, and
severity of poverty among non-migrants, inter-state, intra-state, and international migrant households at place of origin. The paper has been conceptualized with the
following rationales. First, inter-state migration in the post-economic reform period
has increased significantly, from 26 % in 197181 to 56 % by 19912001 (Bhagat
2010) while inter-state economic inequality has widened (Pal and Ghosh 2007; World
Bank 2011). Besides, Indian states depict wide variation with respect to social, cultural,
and ethnic compositions and these diversities give rise to varied migration patterns.
Second, migration is used as a strategy for improving livelihood options; it may be
expected that migrants through remittances raises the household income and may
reduce poverty. The characteristics and motives of migrants vary according to distance
and give rise to different migration patterns; the economic impact may also vary for
different migration types. While the volume and rate of migration is on the rise, moneymetric poverty has declined in many states. Third, most of the studies in India have
examined the migration-poverty linkage at destination, compare economic well-being
at individual level (migrants and non-migrants), based on small-scale surveys, and do
not estimate the level, depth, and incidence of poverty for the states of India. Inferences

drawn from small-scale unrepresentative studies are difficult to generalize. This study
aims to provide an insight into the incidence, depth, and severity of poverty among
migrant categories in the states of India using large-scale nationally representative
population-based survey.
Data
The unit data from the 64th round (July 2007June 2008), schedule 10.2 of the
National Sample Survey (NSS) is used in the analyses. It provides information about
employment, unemployment, and migration from 125,578 households in India. The
households were selected using multi-stage stratified sampling procedure that covered
all the states and union territories. The detailed survey procedure and the preliminary
findings are available in the national report (NSSO 2010b). We have used individual
and household data in the analyses. A migrant is defined based on his/her present place
of residence criteria, and we have used the details of out-migrants (Block 3.1). Out of
100,235 out-migrants, 48.85 % migrated for employment-related reasons (taking up a
better job, in search of employment, better employment, business, transfer of service,
and proximity to place of work), 32.55 % for marriage, 4.36 % for education, and
14.26 % for other reasons. We have used only those samples that stated employment as
the reason for migration (N=48,960). The migrants are classified based on their
movement within the state boundary, outside the state boundary but within the country,
and outside the national boundary. From individual files, we prepared the household
file to glean whether the households had any intra-state, inter-state migrants, emigrants,
or a combination of these.
We have classified households into eight mutually exclusive categories, households
with intra-state migrants only, households with inter-state migrants only, household
with international migrants only, households with inter-state and intra-state migrants, all
other categories, and non-migrant households. Out of 125,578 households, 19,195
(15.29 %) households had only intra-state migrants, l5,974 (12.74 %) households had
only inter-state migrants, 3340 (3.44 %) had only emigrants, 880 (0.70 %) households
had intra-state and inter-state migrants, 128 (0.10 %) had emigrants and inter-state
migrants, 150 (0.12 %) had inter-state and emigrants, and 19 (0.02 %) had intra-state,
inter-state, and emigrant households. For analytical purposes, we have regrouped the
households into four categories, intra-state migrants, inter-state migrants (combined
inter-state, inter-state, and intra-state category if at least one member is inter-state
migrants), emigrants (at least one member is an emigrants), and non-migrant households. In the absence of panel data on migration and information on pre- and posteconomic status of migration households, non-migrant households are taken as the
reference category to understand the effect of migration on poverty. The amount of
remittance received by the households in 365 days prior to the survey along with
characteristics of the household is used in the analyses.
The monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE), a direct economic
measure, is used as the key economic variable of the household and used in our
analyses. The MPCE is defined as the total household expenditure divided by household size. A household with higher MPCE is regarded as an economically better-off
household compared to one with lower MPCE. In the absence data on income, MPCE

S.K. Mohanty et al.
is used to explain the economic differentials among population sub-groups in many

developing countries including India. Remittances received by households enhance
income and hence enable the households to spend more.
We have termed the states with state domestic product per capita (SDPP) less
than national average (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Jammu and
Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal) in
200708 as less developed states. Similarly, the states with SDPP of more than
national average in 200708 (Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand)
were termed as more developed states. Analyses have been presented for 20
states where there were at least 100 migrants for employment purpose.
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Sikkim, Meghalaya, and
Mizoram are clubbed as the Northeastern states, and all the other states are
combined. All our analyses are presented for four mutually exclusive households namely, non-migrant households, intra-state migrant households only,
inter-state migrant household, and emigrant households and a consolidated
migrant category.
Measures and Statistical Analyses

To comprehend the poverty differentials across migration categories, the poverty
headcount ratio, poverty gap ratio, and square poverty gap are used. These are the
family of FGT measures and largely used in literature (Foster et al. 1984) in measuring
level, depth, and severity in poverty. The poverty head count ratio is the percentage of
population living below the poverty and measured as
HCR
q
N
where q is the number of population whose consumption expenditures are below statespecific poverty line and N is the total number of population.
The poverty gap ratio is the extent to which the expenditure of the poor lies below
the poverty line and measured as
q

1 X
PGR
Z p Y i =Z p
N i1
where Zp denotes the poverty line, Yi the expenditure of the ith individual living below
poverty line, N the total number of population, and q the number of population whose
expenditures are below the poverty line.
The square poverty gap measures the severity of poverty by taking the
square of poverty gap as weight. In addition, the Gini index is used to measure
the extent of inequality in economic well-being (consumption expenditure)
across migration categories.

The state-specific poverty line cut-off point as recommended by the Planning

Commission, Government of India for 200405 was used in demarking the poor and
the non-poor in the unit data (Planning Commission 2013). Since the poverty cut-off
point was for 200405, and MPCE was for 200708, we have used the price deflator
for rural areas and urban areas (derived from the consumer price index of agricultural
laborer with 198687 as the base for rural areas and for urban non-manual employees
with 198485 as the base for urban areas). The price deflator for rural areas was 319 in
200405 and 389 in 200708, while that for urban areas was 338 in 200405 and 402
in 200708 (NSSO 2010a). A household in a particular state is defined as poor if the
MPCE of the household is lower than the cut-off point of the poverty line for the state.
Our estimates of poverty are close to the Planning Commission estimates. Bi-variate
analyses are used to understand the differentials in poverty level by migration categories.
Besides, we have used z test and F test to check the significant differences in variables.
To understand the role of migration on poverty, a set of logistic regression models
are used. The regression models are estimated for India and those states where sample
size was 50 and more international migrant households. The dependent variable is
dichotomous, 0 for poor and 1 for non-poor with the poor. All regression models are
controlled for age, sex of the head of the household, household size, place of residence,
educational level of the head of the household, and type of households. The odds ratio
and the 95 % confidence interval from logistic regression are presented for each type of
migrant categories.
Results
We present the distribution of intra-state, inter-state, and emigrants for employment by
states of India (Figs. 1 and 2). The states are arranged in descending order of intra-state
migration. Among those who migrated for employment-related reasons in India,
41.4 % migrated within the state, 48.3 % among the states, and 10.3 % outside the
country. The national pattern of migration conceals large state differentials and was
Fig. 1 Percent distribution of migrants for employment by migration type and state, India, 200506

S.K. Mohanty et al.
Fig. 2 Mean remittance received (in rupees) by educational level of household and type of migrants, India,
200708
linked to the heterogeneity in development among the states of India. The extent of
intra-state migration was highest in Maharashtra (85 %) followed by Gujarat (81 %)
and Karnataka (72 %) and lowest in Bihar (9 %) followed by Uttar Pradesh (22 %). On
the other hand, the percentage of inter-state migration for employment was highest in
Bihar (88 %) followed by Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand (74 % each). The emigration
rate for employment was highest in Kerala followed by Punjab, and it was low in the
other states. In general, economically progressive states (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab,
Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Goa) with a higher state
domestic product per capita (SDPP) than the national average in 200708 have shown
a higher percentage of intra-state migration while economically less developed states
(with SDPP lower than the national average in 200708) have higher inter-state
migrants. These findings also support the fact that Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand,
and Odisha are out-migrating states while Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Kerala are inmigrating states. It corroborates the fact that inter-state migration in India is due to large
regional disparities. On analyzing the reason for migration within and across states, we
found that about 68 % of intra-state migration was due to marriage followed by work
related (17 %) and education (5 %). On the other hand, 62 % of inter-state migrants
were related to employment, 20 % for marriage, and 4 % for education. In the case of
emigration, 80 % were employment related, and marriage accounts for 10 %
For better disposition to the reader, the upper part of the panel in our tables represent
the states that have SDPP lower than the national average and the lower panel for states
with more than the national average and uniformly followed for all tables. Five of the
Northeastern states (Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura)
had SDPP less than the national average and so kept in the upper panel of the tables

while the union territories and Goa had higher SDPP than the national average and
placed in the lower panel of the table. We present estimates on two key economic
indicators; namely, the percentage of households owning less than 1 hectare of land
(equivalent to 2.47 acres) in rural areas and the percentage of households that have a
regular wage/salary-earning member in urban India (Table 1). Land is a key economic
variable in rural India as majority of Indias rural households depends on agricultural
income. At the national level, while 18.4 % of non-migrant households had more than
1 ectare of land holding, it was 19.67 % among migrant households. Among migration
categories, while 24.1 % of intra-state migrant households have more than 1 hectare of
landholding, it was 17.15 % among inter-state migrant households and 15.4 % among
emigrants, indicating that that intra-state migrants have better control over resources.
The pattern holds true in many states of India except in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra
Pradesh, and Assam. However, landholding varies largely within migration categories
among the states of India. Among inter-state migrants, while about 50 % of them hold
more than 1 hectare of land in Rajasthan, it was 4.3 % in West Bengal. In urban India, a
household with regular wage/salary is likely to reduce migration. We found that 42 %
of non-migrants in India had a regular wage/salary compared to 28 % of migrant
households and the pattern holds true for all the states in India. Among migration
categories, the percentage of households with a regular wage/salary was 32.7 % among
intra-state migrants compared to 25.9 % among inter-state migrants and 23.6 % among
emigrants. The percentage of households with a regular wage/salary among intra-state
migrant households was lowest in Bihar and highest in the Northeastern states. The
variability in the percentage of households with a regular wage/salary among inter-state
migrants is lower than that among intra-state migrants. We also tabulated the mean
household size by migration categories. The mean household size was 5.55 among
intra-state migrants, 6.31 among inter-state migrants, 6.04 among emigrant households,
and 5.63 among non-migrant households (Table not shown). The state differentials in
household size suggest that in most of the states, those households sending their
members outside the state boundary are larger compared to household sending members within the state or non-migrant households.
Economic Well-Being of Migrant Households

Tables 2 and 3 present the MPCE and Gini index of households by migration categories
in India. The MPCE of emigrant household in India was highest (Rupees 1362)
followed by intra-state migrant households (Rupees 862) and inter-state migrant
households. Most of the less developed states had lower MPCE than the national
average. This indicates that emigrants are better off in economic status followed by
inter-state migrants and non-migrant households. Among the states of India, MPCE
was lowest in the state of Bihar followed by Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand, and Uttar
Pradesh. However, this pattern does not hold true for intra-state and inter-state migrants.
While the MPCE among emigrants and inter-state migrants was lowest in Bihar, it was
lowest among intra-state migrant households in Chhattisgarh. The MPCE of inter-state
migrant households in economically developed states is significantly higher than that of
intra-state migrant households and non-migrant households. On the other hand, the
MPCE of intra-state migrant households is higher than that of inter-state migrant
Jammu and Kashmir 11.6
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Northeastern states
Odisha
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
10
11
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Karnataka
Kerala
12
13
14
15
16
17
More developed states
India
Chhattisgarh
3.9
25.3
12.2
26.1
20.0
7.6
31.7
18.4
34.1
36.8
18.6
19.7
18.4
17.5
4.9
16.1
49.2
17.2
26.8
37.4
18.4
32.1
46.3
8.4
22.4
Migrant
households
3.2
15.4
37.6
13.6
18.0
38.1
12.3
41.7
9.1
Assam
Bihar
20.0
Non-migrant
households
13.0
32.1
23.9
24.1
36.0
17.3
24.1
5.1
18.5
47.5
17.7
30.0
39.3
22.3
21.0
51.2
12.7
17.9
Intra-state
migrant
households
4.7
27.9
15.1
36.2
49.5
29.0
17.2
4.3
15.0
51.3
16.7
19.2
33.0
16.8
43.6
37.0
8.1
33.5
Inter-state
migrant
households
50.5
62.7
42.3
6.9
31.2
42.9
44.2
49.1
51.0
45.8
40.5
41.8
41.6
33.6
33.0
44.2
41.8
36.0
50.4
30.8
12.6
15.4
18.2
27.3
40.5
32.1
11.6
78.3
36.8
38.1
25.5
43.7
Non-migrant
households
5.1
Emigrant
households
19.1
31.4
33.2
27.7
32.5
39.1
28.2
19.6
25.2
18.2
34.5
40.7
31.7
38.2
29.3
35.3
20.1
27.2
Migrant
households
26.6
39.6
21.0
32.6
38.2
39.5
32.7
23.1
32.3
21.3
39.0
42.0
28.9
34.9
27.3
33.0
14.7
25.0
Intra-state
migrant
households
24.0
27.2
41.3
21.7
21.3
32.7
25.9
17.8
24.2
17.8
32.1
38.2
37.9
40.8
32.1
36.6
21.5
35.8
Inter-state
migrant
households
15.7
17.8
46.8
31.0
44.7
23.6
15.1
7.4
12.6
30.4
43.6
14.8
28.4
24.3
37.5
Emigrant
households
Percentage of households having land size of one hectare and more in rural India Percentage of households that has regular wage/salary in urban India
Less developed states
Sr. no State /India
Table 1 Percentage of households with 1 hectare and more land holding (in rural India) and with a regular wage/salary member in urban India, 200708

S.K. Mohanty et al.
Punjab
Tamil Nadu
Uttarakhand
Others
19
20
21
22
2.4
6.6
8.1
18.8
27.1
Non-migrant
households
12.0
5.2
10.5
19.5
36.6
Migrant
households
16.1
6.6
8.0
17.0
36.7
Intra-state
migrant
households
12.6
4.7
10.4
16.2
40.8
Inter-state
migrant
households
33.9
50.0
1.0
39.4
44.5
51.1
Non-migrant
households
17.0
21.9
11.0
Emigrant
households
30.9
13.5
31.0
28.5
33.4
Migrant
households
48.3
26.5
33.4
28.4
35.2
Intra-state
migrant
households
37.0
13.1
22.7
40.1
36.1
Inter-state
migrant
households
23.4
34.4
22.1
25.8
Emigrant
households
Percentage of households having land size of one hectare and more in rural India Percentage of households that has regular wage/salary in urban India
The F test shows significant differences in households with more than 1 ha of land holding in all states except Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Punjab and significant difference in wage employment among migration categories except the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Bihar, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and the Northeastern states
The z test shows significance difference in land of 1 hectare and more among migrants and non-migrants in all states except Assam and the Northeastern states and significance
difference in regular wage earner in all states except Bihar, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh
Less developed states has percapita income than national average (India) and more developed states has percapita income more than national average is the significance of Bold entries
Maharashtra
18
Sr. no State /India
Table 1 (continued)
State
836
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
India
10
11
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Karnataka
Kerala
15
16
17
13
14
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
12
778
Orissa
1163
925
1074
1042
991
865
670
823
601
914
655
647
Jharkhand
945
Madhya Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
603
Northeastern states
Chhattisgarh
801
566
Bihar
Non-migrant
households
1390
915
1116
1257
1121
1093
854
811
651
886
696
1027
702
747
1088
651
579
814
Migrant
households
1415
826
1188
1144
958
1009
862
800
718
880
697
1023
655
790
1041
650
711
809
Intra-state
migrant
households
1455
854
1070
1253
1324
1082
740
790
628
868
683
1040
767
720
1102
650
563
816
Inter-state
migrant
households
Monthly per capita consumption expenditure (in rupees)
Assam
Sr. no
1365
1738
992
1570
2200
1329
1362
1400
712
1001
1280
991
1199
1065
1810
1076
687
1444
Emigrant
households
0.361
0.382
0.337
0.288
0.298
0.332
0.336
0.350
0.258
0.277
0.313
0.259
0.28
0.274
0.226
0.277
0.229
0.244
Non-migrant
households
Gini index
0.373
0.342
0.28
0.272
0.335
0.372
0.336
0.345
0.237
0.258
0.301
0.262
0.295
0.292
0.234
0.301
0.209
0.268
Migrant
households
0.344
0.305
0.319
0.273
0.278
0.343
0.309
0.309
0.262
0.273
0.278
0.263
0.256
0.266
0.218
0.261
0.288
0.273
Intra-state
migrant
households
Table 2 State differentials in monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) and Gini index by households migration status, India, 200708
0.397
0.322
0.251
0.244
0.335
0.362
0.300
0.355
0.227
0.247
0.305
0.262
0.347
0.298
0.230
0.360
0.197
0.251
Inter-state
migrant
households
0.373
0.381
0.226
0.353
0.356
0.428
0.405
0.520
0.228
0.257
0.402
0.184
0.283
0.220
0.340
0.288
0.195
0.230
Emigrant
households

S.K. Mohanty et al.
Others
22
1537
885
933
1200
1052
Non-migrant
households
2116
998
1040
1679
1038
Migrant
households
1348
838
928
1590
883
Intra-state
migrant
households
2036
880
1001
1496
1163
Inter-state
migrant
households
Monthly per capita consumption expenditure (in rupees)
2579
4248
1303
1804
2964
Emigrant
households
0.341
0.278
0.343
0.317
0.374
Non-migrant
households
Gini index
0.401
0.335
0.358
0.303
0.374
Migrant
households
0.313
0.257
0.319
0.286
0.297
Intra-state
migrant
households
0.451
0.256
0.376
0.283
0.388
Inter-state
migrant
households
0.332
0.198
0.376
0.312
0.526
Emigrant
households
The t test shows significant differences in MPCE among migrants and non-migrants in all states except Maharashtra and Uttarakhand. The F test shows significant difference in MPCE
across migration groups in states of India
Tamil Nadu
Uttarakhand
21
Punjab
20
Maharashtra
19
State
18
Sr. no
Table 2 (continued)
State
62.9
India
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Karnataka
Kerala
Maharashtra
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
76.5
West Bengal
11
72.2
59.2
56.2
57.6
81.7
75.3
50.1
39
68.2
Rajasthan
80.8
65.4
Uttar Pradesh
Odisha
49.5
88.2
92.1
60.6
10
Northeastern states
74.1
87
87.5
63.6
67.4
63.3
86.4
73.3
50.1
49.7
82.9
83.5
85.5
86.5
85.9
82.1
65.2
91.2
95.3
60.4
90.1
58.3
64.5
87.3
71.7
65.3
89.1
58.5
70.3
85.0
87.4
94.5
95.2
89.2
68.3
41.7
92.6
98.2
98.2
98.0
60.1
77.3
60
84.2
75.5
51
47
75.3
80.5
82.2
82.5
84.1
70.1
54.7
90.5
93.8
60.7
90.1
77.9
All migrants
14,430
11,906
26,795
14,403
22,488
31,942
12,750
14,404
17,328
16,516
17,175
25,445
15,101
24,860
10,982
30,693
36,732
10,652
24,477
22,234
30,164
18,592
23,819
42,729
25,346
21,391
18,254
17,308
13,684
29,407
15,329
27,794
16,224
21,103
54,044
8540
14,192
15,867
Inter-state
migrant HH
75,247
67,619
59,358
48,213
112,035
58,700
57,974
65,123
53,070
41,547
52,064
70,945
46,595
54,462
51,290
45,022
17,557
51,972
18,775
Emigrant HH
Intra-state
migrant HH
Emigrant HH
Intra-state
migrant HH
Inter-state
migrant HH
Mean remittances received annually (Rupees)
Household received remittances (%)
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Chhattisgarh
Assam
Bihar
Sr. no
Table 3 State differentials in percentage of household who received remittances and mean remittances received by households (Rupees) in India, 200708
17,566
54,909
19,531
23,639
47,649
20,039
27,903
24,000
17,992
15,648
30,778
15,928
26,202
13,594
23,884
45,372
9951
16,234
14,918
All migrants

S.K. Mohanty et al.
Punjab
Tamil Nadu
Uttarakhand
Others
19
20
21
22
All migrants
45.4
81.5
60.5
51.5
65.5
86.6
74.9
81.4
81.7
92.2
93.4
81.3
67.6
85.5
71.2
74.9
24,091
21,446
16,597
47,208
69,428
21,294
27,883
42,615
Inter-state
migrant HH
187,749
33,878
53,041
111,619
Emigrant HH
Intra-state
migrant HH
Emigrant HH
Intra-state
migrant HH
Inter-state
migrant HH
Mean remittances received annually (Rupees)
Household received remittances (%)
119,182
21,655
30,004
82,991
All migrants
The F test shows the remittance received among migrants differ significantly except in the states of Chattisgarh, Gujarat and Jammu, and Kashmir and significant difference in amount
of remittances among migrants except Jammu and Kashmir
State
Sr. no
Table 3 (continued)

S.K. Mohanty et al.
households in the economically less developed states of India. While lack of employment opportunities and economic constraints of the household are the reason for
migration in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, it is not so in Maharashtra and Gujarat. Based
on MPCE, we have computed the Gini index to understand the extent of inequality in
the population. The Gini index was 0.41 among emigrants, 0.34 among non-migrants,
0.30 among inter-state migrants, and 0.31 among intra-state migrants. We found that
the Gini index varies across the states and among migration groups within the state. In
general, the states that have lower MPCE also tend to have relatively lower Gini index
and vice versa. The Gini index was lowest in Bihar (0.23) and highest in Maharashtra
(0.37). For the intra-state migrant category, the Gini index was 0.34 in Gujarat and
lowest (0.22) in Jammu and Kashmir. The Gini index of inter-state migrant households
was lowest in Bihar (0.20) followed by Uttar Pradesh (0.23). The variability in the Gini
index in inter-state migrant households is higher than that for intra-state migrants. The
Gini index is large among emigrants, indicating the larger variability in remittances
received by emigrant households.
Though migration improves the economic well-being of the household through
remittances, not all migrants send remittances and the amount of remittances varies
by state and migrants. We have presented the percentage of household s that received
remittances and the mean annual remittances received by type of household in India.
While 62.9 % of intra-state households received remittances, it was 82.9 % for interstate migrant households and 85 % for emigrant households. Remittances received by
intra-state and inter-state migrants are relatively lower in Punjab, Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala and higher in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. At the national
level, the mean remittances received from intra-state migrant households was Rupees
17,328 compared to Rupees 18,254 among inter-state migrant households and Rupees
65,1234 among emigrant households. Though the percentage of intra-state households
receiving remittances is low in economically progressive states, the mean remittance
received was higher in these states. The mean remittance received by intra-state migrant
households was highest in Punjab followed by Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand and
lowest in Chhattisgarh followed by Madhya Pradesh. In the case of inter-state remittances, the mean remittance received was highest in Jammu and Kashmir followed by
Haryana and Punjab and lowest in Chhattisgarh followed by Assam. In the case of
emigrants, the mean remittance received was highest in Punjab followed by Haryana.
This also revealed that the households that had inter-state migrants in economically
better-off states do not necessarily depend on remittances for their livelihood, while it
was not the case in poor states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
This finding indicates two broad patterns with respect to intra-state and inter-state
migration in India. Migration for employment in the developed states of India is largely
within the state, while it is outside the state boundaries in the less developed states of
India. This corroborates the findings of studies that regional disparities in economic
opportunities pushes people from poorer states to out-migrate in search of livelihood
options (Dayal and Karan 2003; Deshingkar and Start 2003) which is not the case for
developed states due to the availability of suitable opportunities within the state. Two,
the economic condition of intra-state migrant households in less developed states is
better compared to that of inter-state households while it is opposite in the case of
developed states. Perhaps, this indicates that a large part of inter-state and intra-state
migration in less developed states is for survival and livelihood reasons while for

developed states it is for better employment and business opportunities. This is further
confirmed from the above finding that inter-state migrant households at the place of
origin are poorer in less developed states of India. Perhaps, individuals with higher
education and more social capital are able to find suitable jobs within the state in lowdeveloped states and those with low social capital find it hard to get employment
opportunities within the state. On the other hand, in case of developed states, the intrastate migrant households are poorer, indicating that availability of opportunities in those
states does not push people to migrate outside the state.
Poverty by Migration Type and Educational Attainment of Head

of the Household
Disaggregation of migrant households by educational status of the head of the household suggests lower incidence and narrowing in poverty headcount ratio among interstate and intra-state migrant households in India and many of the less developed states.
In India, the estimated poverty headcount ratio among non-migrant households where
the head of the household had higher secondary educational level was 11 % compared
to 10 % in inter-state migrant households, 8 % among intra-state households, and less
than 1 % among emigrants. In case of Uttar Pradesh, the estimated poverty headcount
ratio was 21 % among non-migrant households where the head of the household had
higher secondary education compared to 11 % among intra-state migrants, 17 % among
inter-state migrants and 2 % among emigrants. Controlling for the educational level of
the head of households, the poverty level was higher for non-migrants followed by
inter-state migrants, intra-state migrants, and emigrants. This suggests that migrants
with higher social capital tend to be economically better off than non-migrants. The
above findings supports that inter-state variations in the migration pattern provide a
mixed pattern between the socioeconomic conditions of a state and their influence on
the migration flow. The same is true with respect to intra-state migration as well.
Migration and Poverty in India

Table 4 presents the poverty headcount ratio, the poverty gap ratio, and the squared
poverty gap for all types of migrant households in the states of India (Table 4). At the
national level, the poverty level among non-migrant households was estimated at
39.3 % compared to 35.0 % among migrant households. Among migration categories,
the poverty ratio was estimated at 31.4 % among intra-state migrant households, 40.7 %
among inter-state migrant households, and 19.9 % among emigrant households.
Although at the aggregate level the incidence of poverty is lower for migrant households, there are variations across the states of India. Among migrants, the poverty level
varies from 4.6 % in the state of Punjab to 52 % in Bihar followed by 43 % in Uttar
Pradesh. Within migration categories, the poverty level varies among the states of
India. On comparing the poverty level among migrant categories in the states, it has
been found that emigrant households have a lower incidence of poverty than all other
types of migrant households irrespective of states. Since the volume of remittance flow
from such a type of movement is larger than other types of migration flow, it stimulates
State/India
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
India
11
16.77
32.75
33.28
23.1
35.19
28.73
33.57
26.47
26.24
32.99
33.08
45.34
35.55
10.44
25.97
27.37
4.57
32.71
21.57
24.24
15.74
10.2
25.13
20.37
35.01
39.59
43.03
26.79
37.34
23.54
39.55
28.48
16.9
40.49
52.18
36.66
Migrant
households
13.95
31.83
29.97
6.94
34.48
13.28
27.35
17.48
10.72
27.77
23.72
31.4
36.31
37.36
30.05
33.5
24.2
38.65
21.44
10.71
33.57
41.08
38.76
Intra-state
migrant
household
17.36
24.68
33.41
5.2
28.74
23.41
23.34
14.88
10.37
25.71
19.86
40.67
42.55
44.95
27.13
40.33
23.42
43.42
31.71
22.68
53.18
53.88
32
Inter-state
migrant
household
2.85
1.71
11.11
16.21
3.31
16.62
23.28
3.79
3.35
7.96
2.07
11.87
19.93
36.79
37.89
14.82
2.43
2.57
8.09
3.29
6.21
6.93
5.03
8.31
6.73
7.19
5.36
5.56
6.42
6.58
8.64
11.17
9.53
7.42
14.16
5.22
10.23
9.16
11.43
5.46
13.47
6.61
Nonmigrant
household
35.16
8.13
Emigrant
household
1.88
4.77
5.66
0.72
6.55
4.84
5.29
2.36
5.24
3.81
7.13
8.46
4.69
7.76
4.51
8.27
6.27
1.74
9.67
11.02
7.35
Migrant
households
Poverty gap ratio (%)
2.41
6.55
5.96
0.99
7.12
5.83
3.49
2.34
5.75
4.58
6.37
7.44
7.31
5.47
6.63
5.03
8.26
2.65
1.21
7.33
9.69
8.22
Intra-state
migrant
household
3.22
4.3
7.98
0.93
4.98
4.12
5.47
1.64
2.12
5.57
3.87
8.39
10.36
9.03
4.66
8.55
3.54
8.75
7.7
2.24
13.92
11.42
5.34
Inter-state
migrant
household
0.26
1.67
2.77
0.51
2.12
5.55
0.88
0.26
0.51
0.46
1.67
3.65
8.27
4.79
2.41
1.08
0.27
1.03
0.51
3.77
1.23
Emigrant
household
0.96
1.77
2.10
1.59
2.83
2.32
2.17
1.69
1.74
1.84
1.95
2.74
3.68
2.86
2.28
4.83
1.57
3.30
3.20
0.61
3.99
4.44
1.90
Nonmigrant
household
0.62
1.27
1.68
0.16
1.99
1.67
1.67
0.6
0.57
1.52
1.08
2.14
2.44
1.22
2.32
1.47
2.54
0.24
3.3
3.37
2.09
Migrant
households
Square poverty gap
0.6
2.06
1.75
0.25
2.24
0.97
1.85
1.08
0.81
1.7
1.23
1.92
2.44
2.04
1.43
1.89
1.73
2.67
0.53
0.16
2.33
3.24
2.43
Intra-state
migrant
household
1.18
1.02
2.58
0.24
1.19
1.28
1.73
0.29
0.56
1.46
1.38
2.52
3.5
2.65
1.22
2.61
0.94
2.43
2.56
0.31
5.05
3.48
1.32
Inter-state
migrant
household
0.06
0.67
0.67
0.1
0.3
1.96
0.24
0.02
0.04
0.11
0.38
1.1
2.62
1.17
0.55
0.48
0.04
0.14
0.05
0.64
0.19
Emigrant
household
Uttarakhand
Others
Maharashtra
18
22
Kerala
17
21
Karnataka
16
Punjab
Himachal Pradesh
15
Tamil Nadu
Haryana
14
20
Gujarat
13
19
Andhra Pradesh
12
47.75
39.33
Rajasthan
55.25
30.53
46.46
10
Madhya Pradesh
39.64
Jharkhand
46.55
20.51
Northeastern states
Jammu and Kashmir
Odisha
Chhattisgarh
32.47
57.54
Bihar
Nonmigrant
household
Poverty headcount ratio (%)
Assam
Sr. no.
Table 4 State differentials in percentage of households living below poverty line, poverty gap ratio, and square poverty gap by their migration status in India, 200708

S.K. Mohanty et al.

the economic status of the family left behind. However, the incidence of poverty among
inter-state migrants is higher compared to intra-state migrants in the economically less
developed states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradesh. On
the other hand, the level of poverty among inter-state migrants is lower than that among
intra-state migrants in Maharashtra, Punjab, and Karnataka. In comparison with nonmigrant households, the incidence of poverty is lower among emigrants, indicating that
international remittances do play a significant role in reducing the level and depth of
poverty of the families.
The poverty gap ratio that reflects the depth of poverty was also higher among nonmigrant households (8.6 %) compared to that of migrant households (7.1 %). This
indicates that on an average, the poor from non-migrant households had an expenditure
shortfall of 9 % of the poverty line compared to 7 % among migrants. Within migration
categories, the poverty gap ratio was 6.4 % among intra-state migrant households,
8.4 % among inter-state migrant households, and 3.65 % among emigrants. This pattern
is evident in both the less developed and more developed states of India. For example,
in Uttar Pradesh, the poverty gap ratio was 9.5 % among non-migrants compared to
7.31 % among intra-state migrants and 9 % among inter-state migrant households. The
square poverty gap that measures the severity of poverty and sensitive to the changes in
the distribution among the poor was 2.7 % among non-migrants, 1.9 % among intrastate migrants, 2.5 % among inter-state migrants, and 1.1 % among emigrants. Like
poverty headcount ratio and the poverty gap index, the squared poverty gap is higher
among economically less developed states in all migrant categories. It is higher among
inter-state migrant households and lower among intra-state migrant households in these
states. On the whole, we found a higher level, depth, and severity of poverty among
inter-state migrants followed by non-migrants, intra-state migrants, and non-migrants in
the less developed states and India. However, in economically developed state, the
level, depth, and severity of poverty was higher among non-migrants followed by intrastate migrants, inter-state migrants, and emigrants. These findings are consistent with
the studies that maintain that migration reduces the level, depth, and severity of poverty
in developing countries.
Differentials in Remittances by Educational Level of Head of Household

in India
We also present the mean remittances received by educational level of the head
of the household. The mean remittances received increases with the educational
level of the households irrespective of the migration category. For example,
among inter-state migrant households, the mean annual remittances received
were Rupees 16,119 among the non-literate, Rupees 33,080 among households
where head of household had educational level of graduation and above. On the
other hand, controlling for education, the mean remittances was highest for
emigrant households followed by households with inter-state and intra-state
migrant households (except for graduation and above category). For example,
among household heads with higher secondary educational level, the mean
remittance received was Rupees 24,574 for intra-state migration households
compared to Rupees 26,482 for inter-state migration households.

S.K. Mohanty et al.
Predictors of Poverty
Table 5 presents results of logistic regression analyses. Results are presented as adjusted
odds ratio of migration categories, and non-migrants are used as the reference category.
We found that at the national level, the odds of being poor among intra-state, inter-state,
and emigrant households are lower than among non-migrant households in India and
most of the states. However, the odds of intra-state migrant households being poor are
lower compared to inter-state migrant households. The state pattern suggests that in less
developed states of India, the odds of being poor are higher for inter-state migrant
household compared to intra-state household. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, the odds
of living below poverty line were 0.82 [CI 0.690.97] among inter-state migrant
households and 0.74 [0.560.97] among intra-state migrant households. Similarly in
Bihar, the odds of being poor were 0.75 [0.610.90] among inter-state migrant households while it was 0.47 [0.270.78] among intra-state migrant households. This
signifies the incidence of poverty is significantly lower for intra-state migrant households in less developed states. However, the impact of migration on reducing the
incidence of poverty is not significant in many of the states in case of intra-state
migrant households. In states like Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamil
Table 5 Result of logistic regression of poverty and migration type controlling for socioeconomic and
demographic factors in India, 200708
Adjusted odds ratio and confidence interval
State/India
Non-migrant
households
Intra-state migrant
households
Odd
ratio
Inter-state migrant
households
Confidence Odd
interval
ratio
Emigrant households
Confidence Odd
interval
ratio
Confidence
interval
0.080.61

Bihar
0.47***
0.290.78
0.75***
0.610.90
0.23***
Rajasthan
0.82
0.561.20
0.68**
0.500.92
0.29***
0.130.66
Uttar Pradesh
0.74**
0.560.97
0.82**
0.690.97
0.54*
0.271.10
West Bengal
0.57***
0.410.77
0.75**
0.590.97
0.69
0.301.59
India
0.73***
0.670.80
0.81***
0.750.88
0.38***
0.310.48
0.81
0.601.10
0.58**
0.350.94
0.22***
0.190.40

Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
0.87
0.541.42
0.78
0.341.78
0.09***
0.020.35
Haryana
0.39***
0.210.72
0.37**
0.160.86
0.21*
0.031.30
Karnataka
0.70*
0.451.07
0.40***
0.210.76
0.05***
0.020.15
Kerala
0.31***
0.160.62
0.86
0.501.50
0.55***
0.370.82
Maharashtra
0.88
0.681.15
0.71
0.431.19
0.46
0.102.16
Punjab
0.31***
0.130.73
0.20***
0.100.37
0.14***
0.060.31
Tamil Nadu
1.1
0.791.52
1.08
0.681.71
0.29***
0.160.53
Controlled for age, sex, educational level of household of head of household, sector, and household size
***p<0.01; **p<0.05

Nadu, and Gujarat, intra-state migration does not have any significant impact on
incidence of poverty. The odd ratios are lowest for emigrant categories and statistically
significant in most of the states of India. This suggests that the incidence of poverty is
significantly lower among emigrants across less developed and more developed states
of India.
Discussion and Conclusion

Increasing economic inequality in the states of India and increasing inter-state migration is the main motivation of this research. While studies have established the positive
role of migration in household development in India, there are limited studies on the
regional pattern of migration and estimation of poverty among inter-state, intra-state,
and non-migrants at the place of origin. This is probably due to a number of factors
including the complex relationship between poverty and migration, data limitation, and
methodological issues. Poverty reduction in migrant households mediate through
remittances that are used for varying purposes such as meeting basic needs, investment
and payment of debt and loans, and intake of better food. Against this background, we
explore the linkages of poverty and migration among states of India with specific
emphasis on inter-state and intra-state migration. We have used the unit data from the
nationally representative population-based survey that enable us to examine the
state pattern and generalize the finding, the level, depth, and severity of poverty
among intra-state migrants, inter-state migrants, emigrants, and non-migrants in
India. Our approach is unique as we have used only employment-related migration, estimated poverty level of households at destination, and analyzed the pattern
among the states of India.
We have the following findings. One, at the national level, the level, depth, and
severity of poverty among non-migrants is higher than among migrants. Controlling for
socioeconomic correlates, the incidence of poverty among migrant households is
lowered compared to non-migrant households in many of the states in India. This is
indicative of the fact that migration has a positive impact on reducing the poverty status
of a household, and this findings is consistent with earlier studies (Arjan and Dubey
2006; Kundu and Sarangi 2007). Two, at the state level, the inter-state migration
accounts for a larger share of employment-related migration from the less developed
states, while intra-state migration accounts for a larger share in more developed states
barring Kerala and Punjab that have high shares of emigrants. Three, the level, depth,
and severity of poverty among inter-state migrants in less developed states is higher
than that among intra-state migrants, while the poverty level among inter-state migrants
in more developed states is lower than that among intra-state migrant households and
non-migrants. However, all poverty indices are significantly lower among emigrants
compared to all other groups. Four, the extent of economic inequality is higher in the
more developed states of India. This is possibly because migration from less developed
states is poverty induced while that from more developed states is for better employment opportunities Five, we found that the family size of intra-state migrant households
is smaller than that of inter-state migrant households. This is possibly because, on
average, a large household tend to be poorer and household member migrate for
employment to other states.

S.K. Mohanty et al.
Our findings may be viewed in context of increasing inter-state migration in posteconomic reform period and increasing inter-state economic inequality. The ratio of
SDPP of the poorest and richest state has increased from 5.66 in 1991 to 9.23 in 2011,
and the Gini index of consumption expenditure has shown similar trends. Rising
economic disparity has possibly increased inter-state migration among all section of
the population. Migration and remittances should not be viewed as a panacea to
overcome structural adjustment constraints, and investing on human capital is beneficial for development. Hence, our recommendation is to reduce regional disparities by
increasing investment in the less developed regions of India. Second, given the regional
imbalances, labor mobility especially from backward areas of the country is inevitable.
By ensuring stable employment, the long distance employment-oriented migration
among the poor can be reduced. In this context, we recommend integrating migration
in development strategies and poor migrants should be the target group in poverty
alleviation program of the national and state governments. No doubt, it is challenging
for planners and policy makers both at the country and state level to integrate migration
into development policies but it can help both urban and rural population. Third, interstate migrants with low social capital are subject to exploitation and abuse. It has been
estimated that of the total labor force in the country, around 93 % of people are in
informal employment such as construction, textile, food processing, mines and
quarries, domestic workers, etc. Such workers face discrimination at the work place.
We recommend that labor legislation should be enforced more strictly, and social
protection schemes should be strengthened for ensuring remunerative and safe employment. For enhancing skills of migrants, skill developmental programs need to be
initiated in a larger scale so that migrants would not be exploited at the work place.
Last, still a large amount of remittances flows through informal channels and results in
high cost of remittance. Enabling migrants easy access to a formal banking system for
safe and secure transfer of remittances is highly desired.
We outline the following limitations of our study. First, we have estimated poverty at
the place of origin and not at destination. Migrants may be better off at the place of
destination. Second, we have not addressed the causality of poverty and migration.
Despite these limitations, the paper contributes to literature by providing the estimates
of poverty indices among migrant households at the place of origin across the states of
India.
References
Adams, R. H. (1993). The economic and demographic determinants of international migration in rural Egypt.
Journal of Development Studies, 30, 146167.
Adams, R. H., & Page, J. (1991). The effects of international remittances on poverty, inequality and
development in rural Egypt Research Report 86. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Adams, R. H., & Page, J. (2005). Do international migration and remittances reduce poverty in developing
countries? World Development, 33(10), 16451669.
Airola, J. (2007). The use of remittance income in Mexico. International Migration Review, 41(4), 850859.
Arjan, de. H., & Dubey, A. (2006). Are migrants worse off or better off? Margin-Journal of Applied Economic
Research, 38(3), 925.
Banerjee, S. K., Jayachandran, V., & Roy, T. K. (2002). Has emigration influenced Keralas living standards?
A micro level investigation. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(18), 17551765.

Beijer, G. (1970). International and national migratory movements. International Migration Review, 8(3), 93109.
Bhagat, R. B. (2010). Internal migration in India: are the underprivileged migrating more. Asia-Pacific
Population Journal, 25(1), 2745.
Castaldo, A., & Reilly, B. (2007). Do migrant remittances affect the consumption patterns of Albanian
households? South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 25(1), 2554.
Cox-Edwards, A., & Oreggia, E. R. (2009). Remittances and labour force participation in Mexico: an analysis
using propensity score matching. World Development, 37(5), 10041014.
Dayal, H., & Karan, A. K. (2003). Labour migration from Jharkhand. New Delhi: New Delhi. Institute for
Human Development.
De, K. P., & Ratha, D. (2012). Impact of remittances on household income, asset and human capital: evidence
from Sri Lanka. Migration and Development, 1(1), 163179.
Deshingkar, P., & Akter, S. (2009). Migration and human development in India 2009/13.
Deshingkar, P., & Start, D. (2003). Seasonal migration for livelihoods in India: coping, accumulation and
exclusion. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Dubey, A., Jones, R. P., & Sen, K. (2006). Surplus labour, social structure and rural-urban migration:
evidences from Indian data. The European Journal of Development Research, 18(1), 86104.
Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52(3),
761765.
Frank, A. G. (1966). The Development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18(4).
Haan, A. de. (1997). Rural-urban migration and poverty: the case of India. IDS Bulletin, 28(2), 3547. doi:10.
1111/j.1759-5436.1997.mp28002004.x
Haan, A. de. (2011). Inclusive growth? Labour migration and poverty in India. The indian journal of labour
economics, 54(3), 387409.
Haas, H. D. (2010). Migration and development: a theoretical perspective. International Migration Review,
44(1), 227264. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00804.x
Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1870). Migration, unemployment and development: a two sector analysis.
American Economic Review, 60, 126142.
Jain, A. (2010). Labour migration and remittances in Uttarakhand: report of a case study. Kathmandu:
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
Joe, W., Samaiyar, P., & Mishra, U. S. (2009). Migration and urban poverty in India some preliminary
observations working paper 414: Centre for Development Studies. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/
indcdswpp/414.htm
Keely, C. B., & Tran, B. N. (1989). Remittances from labor migration: evaluations, performance and
implications. International Migration Review, 23(3), 500525.
Keshri, K., & Bhagat, R. B. (2012). Temporary and seasonal migration: regional pattern, characteristics and
associated factors. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(4), 8188.
Kundu, A. (1997). Trends and structure of employment in the 1990s: implications for urban growth. Economic
and Political Weekly, 32(24), 13991405.
Kundu, A., & Sarangi, N. (2007). Migration, employment status and poverty: an analysis across urban centres.
Economic and Political Weekly, 42(4), 299306.
Kundu, A., & Saraswati, L. R. (2012). Migration and exclusionary urbanisation in India. Economic and
Political Weekly, XLVII, 2627.
Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 4757.
Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The Manchester School,
22(2), 139191.
Lipton, M. (1980). Migration from rural areas of poor countries: the impact on rural productivity and income
distribution. World Development, 8(1), 124.
Mahapatro, S. R. (2012). The Changing Pattern of Internal Migration in India: Issues and Challenges. Paper
presented at the Paper presented at European Population Conference, Stockholm University Sweden
Mehta, A. K., & Shah, A. (2003). Chronic poverty in India: incidence, causes and policies. World
Development, 31(3), 491511.
Mitra, A., & Murayama, M. (2009). Rural to urban migration: a district-level analysis for India. International
Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 5(2), 3552.
Mohanty, S. K., Dubey, M., & Parida, J. K. (2014). Economic well-being and spending behaviour of
households in India: does remittances matter? Migration and Development, 3(1), 3853.
Mosse, D., Gupta, S., Mehta, M., Shah, V., Rees, J. f., & Team, KRIBP Project Team. (2002). Brokered
livelihoods: debt, labour migration and development in Tribal Western India. Journal of
Development Studies, 38(5), 5988.

S.K. Mohanty et al.
Murthy, C. S., Reddy, S. N., Subrahmanyam, S., Saravanan, V., & Babu, K. S. (2004). Sustainable tribal
development project of Care Vishakhapatnam: baseline survey. Hyderabad. Hyderabad: Centre for
Economic and Social Studies.
Narain, U., Gupta, S., & Veld, K. (2008). Poverty and the environment: exploring the relationship between
household incomes, private assets, and natural assets. Land Economics, 84(1), 148167.
Nord, M. (1998). Poor people on the move: county-to-county migration and the spatial concentration of
poverty. Journal of Regional Science, 38(2), 329351.
NSSO. (2010a). Household consumer expenditure in India, 200708 NSS 64th Round. New Delhi: Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.
NSSO. (2010b). Migration in India 20072008 NSS 64th Round. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics &
Programme Implementation, Government of India.
Pal, P., & Ghosh, J. (2007). Inequality in India: a survey of recent trends. A f f a i r sDESA Working Paper No.
45ST/ESA/2007/DWP/45 July 2007.
Penninx, R. (1982). A critical review of theory and practice: the case of Turkey. International Migration
Review, 16(4), 781818.
PlanningCommission. (2013). Press note on poverty estimates, 201112. New Delhi: Govt of India.
Rapoport, H., & Docquier, F. (2006). The economics of migrants remittances. Handbook of the Economics of
Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 2, 11351198.
Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167235.
Reichert, J. S. (1981). The migrant syndrome: seasonal U.S. wage labor and rural development in central
Mexico. Human Organization, 40(1), 5666.
Rosenzweig, M. R., & Stark, O. (1989). Consumption smoothing, migration, and marriage: evidence from
rural India. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 905926.
Rubenstein, H. (1992). Migration, development and remittances in rural Mexico. International Migration,
30(2), 127153.
Sabates-Wheeler, R., Sabates, R., & Castaldo, A. (2008). Tackling poverty-migration linkages: evidence from
Ghana and Egypt. Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 307328.
Skeldon, R. (1997). Migration and development: a global perspective. New York: Addison Wesley Longman
Limited.
Smita, S. (2008). Distress Seasonal Migration and its Impact on Childrens Education Create Pathways To
Access, Research Monograph No 28. Falmer, UK.: Consortium for Research on Educational Access,
Transitions and Equity (CREATE)
Stark, O., & Bloom, D. E. (1985). The new economics of labor migration. The American Economic Review,
75(2), 173178.
Taylor, E. J. (1999). The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration
process. International Migration, 37(1), 6388.
Todaro, M. P. (1969). A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. The
American Economic Review, 59(1), 138148.
WorldBank (2011). Perspectives on Poverty in India, Stylised facts from survey Data, . Report No 57428,.
Washington DC: Stylised facts from survey Data.
WorldBank (2015). Ending poverty and sharing prosperity. Global Monitoring Report 2014/15, Washington
DC.

Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Does Employment-Related Migration

Reduce Poverty in India?

Sanjay K.Mohanty, Sandhya Rani

Your article is protected by copyright and all

Author's personal copy

Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce Poverty

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

International Institute for Population Sciences, Govandi Station Road, Deonar,

ICIMOD, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal

International Institute for Population Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai 400088, India

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Aim and Rationale

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

is used to explain the economic differentials among population sub-groups in many

Measures and Statistical Analyses

Author's personal copy

The state-specific poverty line cut-off point as recommended by the Planning

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Economic Well-Being of Migrant Households

Jammu and Kashmir 11.6

More developed states

Less developed states

Sr. no State /India

Author's personal copy

Sr. no State /India

Author's personal copy

Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce Poverty

More developed states

Jammu and Kashmir

Monthly per capita consumption expenditure (in rupees)

Less developed states

Author's personal copy

Monthly per capita consumption expenditure (in rupees)

Author's personal copy

Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce Poverty

More developed states

Mean remittances received annually (Rupees)

Household received remittances (%)

Jammu and Kashmir

Less developed states

Author's personal copy

Mean remittances received annually (Rupees)

Household received remittances (%)

Author's personal copy

Does Employment-Related Migration Reduce Poverty

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Poverty by Migration Type and Educational Attainment of Head

Migration and Poverty in India

Poverty gap ratio (%)

Square poverty gap

More developed states

Jammu and Kashmir

Poverty headcount ratio (%)

Less developed states

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Differentials in Remittances by Educational Level of Head of Household

Author's personal copy