Impact of Labour out-Migration and Remittance on Rural Areas: A Case Study from West Bengal, India

 

Suman Kumar Kundu

 

Assistant Teacher, Jindighee High School (H.S.), Sagardighi, Murshidabad, West Bengal

 

ABSTRACT:

Labour out migration from rural areas left upon great impact on regional development including family welfare of migrant’s household. The relevance of such migration and remittance in regional economy is of uttermost importance to economists, planners and geographers also. The present paper conducted over Lalgola block of Murshidabad district, West Bengal is an attempt to find out the role of migration and remittance over household annual income and family welfare. It also tries to enquire about the relevance of migration and remittance upon regional economy. Using stratified random sampling method, 30 respondents (15 from each migrants and non-migrants household) were chosen from randomly selected four sample villages in the block and thus a total of 120 respondents were interviewed by well structured questionnaire to obtain primary data. The procured data were analysed using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression analysis technique and various other descriptive statistical tools. The study results show that despite remittance successfully assists in increasing household annual income of migrant’s family, family welfare still confines upto increasing expenditure in consumption rather than education and health care of family member. Labour crisis is identified as one of the negative impact of migration hampering persisting agricultural activities in situ. Some recommendations have been put forth for sustainable management of remittance into development of rural economy. 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Migration of rural labour as unskilled or semi-skilled one towards urban centre evolved as a common phenomenon in major rice producing belts of developing countries especially India credited for both positive and negative consequence upon livelihood of family household having migrant’s member and economy of sending rural areas. Although deteriorating employment opportunities in rural area and better prospects in urban area contribute as the leading factor of rural out-migration, improved communication and road networks accelerates the mobility of population from rural areas (Deshingkar et al. 2004). The impact of migration whether negative or positive is a controversial matter holding different point of view among scholars working in this field. Generally remittance made by the migrant’s aid in the rise of total family income of the household. Besides contributing on family welfare remittance can improve the existing economic activities by rendering additional investment that could not be possible for non migrating households.

 

But the size and amount of remittance made by migrants depends upon their capacity and socio-economic position at the place of migration (Turkhade 2012).

 

The rate of rural migration is high across the Indo-Gangetic plains covering the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan resulting from very low agricultural productivity and primordial growth of non-agricultural sector (Singh et al.2011). The district of Murshidabad belonging to mature deltaic part of West Bengal experiences massive labour out-migration in the recent past. Dissatisfaction with present wages pattern and persisting agricultural activities along with lack of employment opportunities during lean season of agriculture credited for such labour out-migration in some block of Murshidabad district (Kundu 2013). Despite migration reduces the risk of unemployment during lean period of agriculture and supports the family income by providing continuous flow of remittances, it is solely responsible for labour crisis in various economic activities persisting in situ (Kundu 2012). Keeping aside the negative concept of rural labour out-migration, the optimistic view considers the effective management of remitted amount in family welfare and broadly in regional development process by creating multiplier effects of money. But the field experience is worst from developing countries where remittances help to improve the daily life of left behind migrant’s family by increasing consumption pattern among them rather than contributing on effective investment in regional development (Sandron 2007).

The present paper is an attempt to dapple light on the questions: What is the impact of labour out migration and remittance on household annual income? Does migration induced rising family income improve family welfare? Can remittance contribute in regional development in situ?

 

The Study area:

The present study area Lalgola block of Murshidabad district, West Bengal extends between 24º19′3′′ and 24º28′4′′ N latitudes and 88º8′34′′ and 88º20′45′′ E longitudes, covering an area of 184.37 sq. km. With a population density of 1452 persons/sq. km. the block has total population of 2,67,641 persons (Census of India, 2001).

 

Hypotheses:

H₀₁ = The positive impact of migration and remittance is not mainly the increases of local people’s purchasing power.

H₀₂ = The negative impact of migration and remittance is not mainly the labour crisis in economic activities.

 

MATERIALS AND METHOD:

Nature of data:

Both primary and secondary sources of data have been used for the study. Primary data has been procured from intensive field survey at the study sites. Secondary data has been obtained from Primary Census Abstract (2001), premier journals and relevant books.

 

Selection of Sample and Method of data collection:

The primary data was collected over randomly selected four sample villages in Lalgola block, Murshidabad district, viz. Malatipur, Paranpur, Fatepur and Kulgachi. 30 respondents were interviewed from each village using well structured schedule questionnaire and following stratified random sampling method (15 from each migrant and non-migrant household). Thus a total of 120 respondents were interviewed during the field study.

 

Method of analysis:

The obtained data were analysed using descriptive statistical tools. To confront the taken hypotheses Z-test statistical technique has been employed. For establishing the impact of migration and other socio-economic factors on household income of rural people Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression analysis was used. It is mathematically expressed as:

 

 

Where Y = Total annual household income (Rs.)

The chosen independent variables that have an impact upon dependent variable- household annual income are:

 

X₁ = Household type – ‘1’ = with migrant, ‘0’ = without migrant.

X₂ = Type of family – ‘1’ = Joint, ‘0’ = Nuclear

X₃ = Total no. of family member

X₄ = Age of family head (in years)

X₅ = Educational status of family head – ‘0’= Illiterate, ‘1’= Primary, ‘2’= Secondary/Higher secondary

X₆ = No. of working members in family

X₇ = Primary source of income in family

X₈ = Size of land holdings (in bigha, where 1 bigha = 33 decimal)

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Research findings on determinants of labour out migration from rural country side in agriculture based developing countries put emphasis on differential wages pattern among rural and urban area followed by scared employment opportunities during lean month of agriculture. Although most of the migrants leave outside in search of better output of labour capital without thinking of their native place, the consequence of such migration imprints a long term effect on rural area. The presents study area Lalgola block of Murshidabad district sites example of an ideal agriculture domain economy characterized with dense population distribution and absence of any urban area. The recent gigantic flow of labour from the respective block towards various urban destinations of the state (mainly Kolkata and its surroundings) and outside the state (Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu) left upon great influence on socio-economy of the people residing there.

 

Impact of Labour out migration and Remittance on Household annual income:

Since the study area is lacking from any proper development channel the mean household annual income of people is as low as Rs.41,117 only (Source: Field survey). Table 1 representing the OLS regression result shows the extent of impact of migration and other socio-economic criteria on household annual income (Rs.) of the people in situ. The beta coefficients .857 at 1% significant level for household type (as ‘1’ represents with migrant and ‘0’ shows without migrant household) justifies that migration induced remittance successfully aid in accelerating household annual income. Descriptive statistics shows that mean household annual income reaches to Rs.51,683 in case of migrants household where non migrants household could have only Rs.30,550 annual income. Next after, the independent variable ‘size of land holdings (bigha)’ occupied by every household (either migrant or non-migrant) having beta value .312 at 1% significant level suggests its leading influence upon family income of people. Lastly the variable ‘no. of working members in family’ bears a beta value of .236 at 1% significant level supports its momentous role in household annual income in situ. Keeping aside the aforesaid three variables, the rest five variables are quite insignificant in influencing the annual income of family household at the study area.

 

Besides remittance from migration more no. of working members in family facilitates the increase of family income. The family having two working members, one of them employing in homestead and other migrating outwards for employing significantly contribute to raise family income upto a satisfactory level. Agriculture being predominant economic activities of people at the study area, availability of land holdings determines the income level of family household. Apart from that, primary source of income whatever remittance from migration, agriculture, business activities and other source of employment which include transportation, construction and miscellaneous activities determine the income level of household to some extent. The value of adjusted R square .820 indicates that all the independent variables included in present model accounts for 82% of variance in the dependent variable annual household income. Finally, the obtained value of F is 68.54, significant at 1% level which justifies overall accuracy of the model in explaining the taken issue. 

 

Role of remittance in bringing family welfare of migrants household:

Despite remittances from migration brings overall happiness in the family by increasing household income, migrant’s household especially in the case of nucleus family, the leaving behind family member merely the wives of migrant suffers from loneliness during leisure time. But continuous flow of money through migrant’s remittance confiscate all the negative outcome upon family by creating additional opportunities of family welfare than non migrants household as experienced at the study area. Most of the research findings on migration suggest that bulk portion of remittances is used for consumption purpose, to cover health and education costs, to repay debts, and to repairing or reconstructing houses rather investment in production (Vargas-Lundius et al. 2007). Since the management of remittance entirely depends upon migrant’s behaviour which depends upon their family background, age, marital status, education level, religion and caste etc., the allocation pattern of remittance in family welfare differs among various household.

 

 

Table 1. Influence of migration and socio-economic factors on household annual income

	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t- value	Sig.
	B	Standard Error	Beta
Constant	-2272.249	5916.692		-.384	.702
Household type	25230.30	1771.978	.857	14.239	.000***
Type of family	-4024.099	1999.443	-.136	-2.013	.047*
Total no. of family member	3041.297	901.366	.252	3.374	.001**
Age of family head (in years)	62.831	85.145	.047	.738	.462
Educational status of family head	3799.414	1405.579	.148	2.703	.008**
No. of working member in family	6340.224	1366.102	.236	4.641	.000***
Primary source of income	-2067.442	971.587	-.124	-2.128	.036*
Size of land holdings (Bigha)	3959.614	558.108	.312	7.095	.000***
Dependent variable: Total annual household income (Rs.); R2 =  .832; Adjusted R2 = .820; F Change = 68.54*** *: Significant at 10%; ** : Significant at 5%; ***: Significant at 1%

Table 2 portrays the views of migrant’s household about family welfare created through migration induced rise in family income. As the study area experiences low level of literacy (50.6%) followed by moderately developed socio-economy (Kundu et al. 2012), the expenditure behaviour of migrant’s household differ from desired constructive thinking. This is due to the fact that little portion of household i.e. 41% and 30% agree with increase of expenditures in children education and emphasis on girls education respectively. Majority (82%) of household opined that remittance has improved their living condition. About 73% and 58% agree with increase of expenditure in buying modern amenities and improving health care facilities of family member respectively. Migration induced family income aids in change of food habits of people. 67% and 55% of household think that rising income causes increase of protein and food grain consumption respectively in family. Hence it is quite clear that migration induced family welfare limited with consumption rather than bringing educated next generation by means of providing additional expenditure to create better environment for their education.   

 

Utilization of remittance (bulk portion) of migrants household:

To assess the degree of importance of remitted amount to family member, an opinion survey was also conducted among the migrants household about use of bulk portion of remitted amount. Table 3 exhibits respondent opinion regarding usage of remitted amount. Highest percentage of respondent agrees with use of remittance in fooding and clothing of family member. It is followed by 59% in the usage of either remodelling or construction of new house. 44% respondents make use the remitted amount for development of rural entrepreneurship in business and cottage base industries. Savings by means of bank, postal savings and in life insurance is quite low at the study area as because only 22% respondents agree with savings of remitted amount. Remittance earned from migration can compensate the problem of labour crisis resulting from labour out migration by allowing hired labour to smooth continuation of agricultural activities at the absent of working family member (Vargas-Lundius et al. 2007). The present study reveals that 58% respondent (mainly from joint family structure having large land holdings) agree with the allowance of bulk portion of remittance for hiring of labour for continuing farm activities. Continuous flow of remittance can improve farm activities by adopting modern farm inputs in agricultural activities. Almost 26% respondent agrees with the use of remittance in modern farm inputs like machinery, seeds, irrigation facility etc. Surprisingly minimum portion of household agree (i.e. 6% and 12%) with the usage of remitted amount into two important needs of family like education and health care respectively.

 

Consequence of labour out migration and remittance upon rural people:

Migration of rural people towards nearby urban centres in search of employment can harness the socio-economic development in rural areas (Kayastha 1998). Development of a region requires an integrated planning to co-ordinate all sorts of growth impetus of a specific region whatever agriculture or industry based through an effective policy measures. Although remittance brings through migration synchronize the development by means of multiplier effects of money, various negative consequences emerged as a result of rapid labour out migration.

 

 

Table 2. Family welfare through migration induced family income

Table 4 shows the household view regarding possible positive impact of migration. The study reveals that highest portion of resident (63.33%) hold migrant’s remittance as helpful in increasing purchasing power of local people by creating multiplier effects of their spend money in situ. Almost 57 % respondent belonging to both migrant and non migrant households thinks that migration employing a huge rural labour force reduces human pressure on land. By creating additional opportunities to increase investment in non-farm activities like business, livestock etc., migrants remittance can sustain the regional economy by diversifying the employment opportunities. 45% respondents support the respective impact of migration. Migration encourages more skill creation (‘brain gain’) among migrants than that which is lost with migration (Mendola 2006). About 35% respondent at the study area opined on behalf of migration induced transformation of new skill and ideas throughout the region. 

 

Table 4. Positive impact of migration and remittance on rural area

 

H₀₁ = The positive impact of migration and remittance is not mainly the increases of local people’s purchasing power.

As per table 4, it is found,

P = 76 = 63.33% = 0.63

P₀ = 0.5

N = 120

 

 

Table 4 shows that the calculated value of Z is 2.85 which is greater than the critical value of Z = 1.96. Hence it rejects the null hypothesis and accepts the alternate hypothesis that the positive impact of migration and remittance is mainly the increases of local people’s purchasing power.

 

Table 5 displays resident opinion regarding possible negative consequences arising from rapid rural labour out migration at the study area. As stated earlier rapid labour out migration is solely responsible for labour crisis in persisting economic activities in situ, the same is experienced in the present study area where massive portion i.e. 67.5% respondent hold that view. This phenomenon indirectly affects upon wages rate which rises onwards steadily in recent times affecting badly to less income level people. 57.5% respondents think that migration of rural labour is top most influencing factor leads to heavy increase of present wages rates. As most of the migrants having minimal size of land holdings, they crave to purchase agricultural land even at a high price. This is because 47.5% respondent opined that remitted amount of migrants household is responsible for hike of price of agriculture land at the study area. Regional development is the outcome of collaborative participation of local resident. But lack of participation of able member of family resulting from out migration hampers regional development. 42.5% respondents identify the aforesaid negative impact of migration in situ. 38.33% respondents mainly from non-migrating household think that one of the significant evils of labour out migration is rising income inequality among rural household which disrupt the long term social harmony at the region.   

 

Table 5. Negative impact of migration and remittance on rural area

 

H₀₂ = The negative impact of migration and remittance is not mainly the labour crisis in economic activities.

As per table 5, it is found,

P = 81 = 67.5% = 0.68

P₀ = 0.5

N = 120

 

Table 5 shows that the calculated value of Z is 3.95 which is greater than the critical value of Z = 1.96. Hence it rejects the null hypothesis and accepts the alternate hypothesis that the negative impact of migration and remittance is mainly the labour crisis in economic activities.

 

CONCLUSION:

The trend of labour out migration as experienced in the case of Lalgola block, Murshidabad district is confined to internal migration level and almost entire migrants are male; almost a ‘gendered migration’ in nature. The study area being dominated by conservative people of Muslim communities, female out migration in search of labour is completely absent. The out migration of principal man in the family transforms the managerial responsibilities to principal woman by intensifying their workload and including them in decision making of family (Paris et al. 2010). Although male out migration diversely affect upon productive economic activities in situ, it can be able to enhance the empowerment of rural women by keeping the baton of family at their hand. As the scope of ‘feminization of agriculture’ is limited at the study area where agriculture is the predominant occupation, such activities are suffering at worst from lack of required labour force. One of the negative consequent of labour out migration is observed in low productivity of available cultivable land of migrant’s household which is far behind from non-migrants one. Endangering the foremost base of local rural economy, labour out migration push back the massive portion of rural livelihoods into a future of uncertainty. But the significance of such migration lies in the fact that it brings overall happiness of the migrant’s household by increasing total annual income of family.

 

Since most of the labour out migration is of temporary and short distance at the study area, it can confine the diverse impact of migration mainly problem of labour shortage within a permissible limit. It can cop best by conducting migration at the lean period of agriculture production. For an efficient management of remittance local NGOs may increase the awareness of migrants about spend on better education of their child and encourage those to invest in the development of rural entrepreneurship rather invest the remittance for consumption purpose. For enabling the women from migrants household to take dominant role in decision making process of family various women organization can take leading role by awaking them about effective family management system. Analysing all the outcome of migration at the study area it may conclude that labour out migration from rural area as experienced in the case of Lalgola block despite left upon some diverse impact, directly or indirectly add some impetus to move out from traditional agriculture dependency nature of rural people by creating multiplier effects of remittance into non-farm activities. 

 

REFERENCES:

1.       Deshingkar, P. and Anderson, E. 2004. People on the move: New policy challenges for increasingly mobile populations, Natural Resource Perspectives, No. 92, June 2004, London: Overseas Development Institute.

2.       Kayastha, S.L. 1998. Migration and Urbanization in India and Relevance of Regional Development Programmes, Chapter 13, in ‘Geography of Population’ (ed.), Rawat Publications, Jaipur, p. 259. 

3.       Kundu, S.K. 2012. Impact of Rural Labour Out-migration on Availability of Labour-force at Source area: An Opinion Survey in the block of Dumkal in Murshidabad district, West Bengal, International Journal of Social Science, Vol.1, No.2, pp. 203-209.

4.       Kundu, S.K. 2013. Determinants of Rural Labour Out-Migration: An Experience from Dumkal Block of Murshidabad District, West Bengal, Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 3, Issue-2, pp. 67-70.

5.       Kundu, S.K. and Mondal, D. 2012. Levels of Development in Murshidabad District of West Bengal: A Block Level Study, Journal of Landscape Systems and Ecological Studies, Vol.35, No.1, pp. 515-522.

6.       Mendola, M. 2006. Rural out-migration and economic development at origin- What do we know? Sussex Migration Working Paper No.40, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex, United Kingdom.

7.       Paris, T.R., Rola-Rubzen, M.F., Luis, J.S., Chi, T.T.N., Wongsamun, C. and Villanueva, D. 2010. Interrelationship between labour outmigration, livelihoods, rice productivity and gender roles, Occasional papers- 11, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Asia and the Pacific division, Rome, Italy.

8.       Sandron, F. 2007. Paper presented at Round table on ‘Migration and Rural Employment’, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), February 2007, Rome, Italy.

9.       Singh, N.P., Singh, R.P., Kumar, R., Padaria, R.N., Singh, A. and Varghese, N. 2011. Labour Migration in Indo-Gangetic Plains: Determinants and Impacts on Socio-economic Welfare, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 24 (Conference Number), pp. 449-458.

10.     Turkhade, G. 2012. Migration: Impact & Relevance of Remittance on Rural areas, Kurukshetra- A Journal of Rural Development, Vol.60, No.4, pp. 16-19.

11.     Vargas-Lundius, R. and Lanly, G. 2007. Concept note prepared for Round table on ‘Migration and Rural Employment’, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), February 2007, Rome, Italy.