Abstract
A big share of migrant workers comes to cities from ‘depressed’ rural as well as urban regions in search of work. Large parts of rural areas in the countryside have been experiencing diminishing returns from agriculture and allied occupations triggering such migration that is often facilitated through ‘kith-kin-peer’ networks. Their overwhelming presence and jostling for space frequently make most labour markets in cities as supply driven abodes of employment and income seekers. And yet the manner(s) in which they deal and negotiate with urban labour markets and respond to works that they try to undertake depend upon nature and type of households and resource base at the origin as well as destination points. Through a case study of Surat city in the state of Gujarat, India, this paper deals with the ways in which such migrant workers enter urban labour markets, their employment and job situations, wages and benefits, earnings and expenses, indebtedness and savings, and the manner(s) in which they remain socially and economically connected with their native homes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Note: Figures in parentheses are number of respondents anticipating events back home
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Close ties among family members, kin and friends having potential of giving emotional and physical support to one another.
For more details on this, see Das (1991).
Across our sample states, this figure varies between a maximum of 92.6% and a minimum of 67.9%.
For instance, in a survey carried out by us during 2006–2007, the maximum number of looms handled by a single operator was six looms at a time. This has now increased up to 8–10 looms per worker.
These labourers are normally gathered by a senior worker or a middleman for being hired to work at different construction sites. Without any connection with the main builders they remain at the mercy of contractors. The head masons, tiles fixers, plumbers, carpenters, white washing and painting agents too often take work on a lease basis and employ labourers generally known to them. Wages of these workers are fixed and paid by the main workers or the sub-contractors who collect their share from the builders on the quantum of work carried out by workers hired or contracted by them.
Job security has been defined as a condition where a worker does not lose his employment despite his absence in work for 10 days on a continuous basis.
In an informal labour market, causes behind job insecurity among workers are by and large same across sectors. Hence, the perception of job insecurity hardly varies among workers.
Data on income were collected through recall method. The figures were checked carefully with respect to workers' income during the month of survey and number of months actually worked at Surat during the year. Income here consists of their wage income and extra cash benefits received. Spread across the year, the average amount of extra cash benefit per worker comes to around Rs. 319. As there is hardly any evidence of a migrant earning while visiting his native place, average annual income has been worked out based on their earnings in the city.
Generally, workers in such outlets start at Rs. 3000 per month and gradually receive rise of a maximum amount of Rs. 500 per annum provided the employer is happy on his performance and he is ready to work for the next year. Some of these workers, however, frequently raise an advance amount of money as loan from their employers that gets repaid from their salaries in instalments through deduction of some amount on a regular basis. There is no interest charged on this kind of loan. As these workers enter jobs through some personal connections, there is an element of trust that gets built between employers and employees and the credit market in such cases works through this collateral.
Average amount that a migrant spends per month is approximately Rs. 344 on accommodation, Rs. 163 on making phone calls, Rs. 133 on clothes, Rs. 125 on consuming alcohol and/or tobacco products, and around Rs. 73 on medical exigencies. Not surprisingly, a migrant spends much less (Rs. 44) on children’s education as they find it difficult to pay the money needed for sending children to private schools as well as appear reluctant to send them to specially created 'mother tongue' schools with exceedingly poor facilities.
Of the 59 respondents who raised loans, nearly 80% had one outstanding loan, 17% two outstanding loans and the rest had three outstanding loans.
About 62% of total outstanding loans were generated from friends, relatives and co-workers. Significantly, most among them live in close proximity to one another, have own village or neighbouring village ties and frequently share rooms and living expenses in the city with each other. They also converge in a pronounced way in terms of types and nature of jobs in the city. This generally provides them platforms for knowing each other better and an extended space for mutual dependence and trust.
The share of remittance to total income varies between 31.7 and 38.3% among migrants from different states.
On an average, a married migrant is found to remit Rs. 2649 per month as against Rs. 2239 in case of unmarried migrants.
In cases where more than one male member of a family has migrated to Surat, 65% are found to be married.
Marginal propensity to remit (ß coefficient) is defined as an increase in the size of remittance for increase in income by every one rupee at the destination. For migrants who are married but staying alone in Surat, the value of ß coefficient is 0.50 and significant at 1% level (t-statistics = 8.77, R-squared = 0.48). In case of unmarried migrants, the value of ß coefficient is 0.36 and significant at 1% level (t-statistics = 4.65, R-squared = 0.59).
Of the total money sent to deal with emergencies, 9.4% went for children's education, 6.5% on marriages and 6.2% on repayment of old debts.
Of the 170 migrants, 34.7% are from landless families, 56.5% from marginal farm (0.01-2.50 acres) households, 6.5% from small farm (2.51–5.0 acres) households and remaining 2.4% from medium sized farm (5.01–10.0 acres) households. The average operational landholding size per family is 0.98 acres. None of them had irrigated land.
Here a major event has been defined as one for which a migrant is expected to remit at least Rs. 5000.
Only 3.5% of migrants’ families at their native homes had outstanding loans from formal financial institutions during the reference year.
References
Bardhan, P. 1984. Land, Labour and Rural Poverty: Essays in Development Economics. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bhattacharya, P. 1998. The Informal Sector and Rural-to-Urban Migration: Some Indian Evidence. Economic and Political Weekly 33(21): 1255–1262.
Bino, Paul, B. Kishor, S. Shaoni, M. Piu, M. Krishna, B. Radhika, K. Purandaran, and M. Venkatesh. 2009. India Labour Market Report. Mumbai: Adecco-TISS Labour Market Research Initiative.
Body, Monica. 1989. Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Development and New Agendas. International Migration Review 23(3): 638–670.
Breman, Jan. 1996. Footloose Labour: Working in India’s Informal Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Das, Biswaroop. 1991. Marginalised Urban Labour: The Case of ‘Majoor Addas’ in Indian Cities, Business Standard, September 7.
Das, Biswaroop. 1994. Slums, Migrants and the Urban Informal Sector in Surat City. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 37(3): 391–405.
Gangopadhyay, S. 1997. Some Issues in Interlinked Agrarian Markets. In Agrarian Questions, ed. Kaushik Basu. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Gangopadhyay, S., and Kunal Sengupta. 1987. Small Framers, Money Lenders and Trading Activity. Oxford Economic Paper 39(2): 333–342.
Ghate, Prabhu. 2005. Serving Migrants Sustainably: Remittance Services provided by an MFI in Gujarat. Economic and Political Weekly 40(17): 1740–1745.
Guilmoto, C.Z., and F. Sandron. 2001. The Internal Dynamics of Migration Networks in Developing Countries. Population: An English Selection 13(2): 135–164.
Harris, N. 2003. Migration of Labour: Constructing Transitional Arrangements. Economic and Political Weekly 38(42): 4464–4470.
Hull, E. 2010. International Migration, Domestic Struggles and Status Aspiration Among Nurses in South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies 36(4): 851–867.
Kuhn, R.S. 2005. Community or Connections?. A Social Networks Approach to Chain Migration: Population Programme, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado.
Lobo, Lancy, and Biswaroop Das. 2001. Poor in Urban India. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Mitra, A. 2003. Occupational Choice, Networks and Transfers: An Exegesis Based on Micro Data from Delhi Slums. New Delhi: Manohar.
Mukherjee, Piu, Bino Paul G. D., Pathan J. I. (2009). Migrant Workers in Informal Sector: A Probe into Working Conditions. ATLMRI Discussion Paper Series Discussion Paper 9, Retrieved from http://atlmri.org/index.php/downloads/doc_download/28-discussion-paper-9. Accessed 15 June 2016.
Sahu, Gagan B., and Biswaroop Das. 2008. Income, Remittances and Urban Labour Markets: Oriya Migrant Workers in Surat City. Bhubaneswar: ADHIKAR.
Sahu, Gagan B., and Biswaroop Das. 2010. Urban Labour Markets and the Returns to Migration. Review of Development and Change 15(2): 129–152.
Sarap, K. 1991. Collateral and other Forms of Guarantee in Rural Credit Markets: Evidence from Eastern India. Indian Economic Review 26(2): 167–188.
Sharma, V., Lopamudra Ray, Saraswati das Sumita, and Avina Sarna. 2015. Migration in South Asia: A Review. New Delhi: Polulation Council.
Siddiqui, T., and C.R. Abrar. 2002. Contribution of Returnees: An Analytical Survey of Post Return Experience. Dhaka: International Organization for Migration, Regional Office for South Asia.
Thieme, S. 2006. Social Networks and Migration: far West Nepalese Labour Migrants in Delhi: NCCR North South Dialogue. Berne: NCCR North-South.
Vertovec, S. 2002. Transnational Networks and Skilled labour Migration, Ladenburger Diskurs “Migration” Gottlieb Daimler-und Kari Benz-Stiftung, Ladenburg.
Wong, Tai-Chee. 2013. International and Intra-national Migrations: Human Mobility in Pacific Asian Cities in the Globalization Age. In Asian Cities, Migrant Labour and Contested Spaces, ed. Tai-Chee Wong and Jonathan Rigg. New York: Routledge.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the Indian School of Micro Finance for Women, Ahmedabad for financially supporting the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Das, B., Sahu, G.B. Coping with Cities and Connecting with Villages: Migrant Workers in Surat City. Ind. J. Labour Econ. 62, 89–112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-019-00158-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-019-00158-9