Download 837

7/31/2019 Download 837

1/8

RESEARCH ARTICLE

PATTERNS OF INTERNAL MIGRATION: AN ANALYSIS USING CENSUS DATA OF TAMILNADU

*,1 Dr. K. Jothy and 2Ms. S. Kalaiselvi

1Department of Population Studies, Annamalai Universit y, Annamalainagar-608002, Tamilnadu2Department of Economics (DDE), Annamalai Universit y, Annamalainagar-608002, Tamilnadu

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Internal migration is a necessary element of normal population redistribution and equilibrium. Themobility of people within its national boundaries has been the subject of increasing study in recentdecades. Of the three components of population change viz; birth, death and migration, internalmobility has been most difficult to measure. Such studies are therefore labouring under a majorhandicap of insufficient data. There are not enough questions on internal migration in Indian

Censuses. However, it can be said that from census to census efforts are made to gather enoughdata on internal migration. For instance from 1981, data has been collected on reasons formigration. In these circumstances an attempt has made in this paper to analyze the internalmigration patterns of Tamilnadu. The data for this study are derived from Census of India, 2001.According to the 2001 Census data, migration estimates can be had on place of birth and place oflast residence data. As the cross tabulations are available only for last residence data, the study is

based on the last residence data. In 2001, broadly four questions on internal migration werecanvassed viz; place of birth, place of last residence, and duration of residence and reasons formigration. The technique that is used for measuring the migration movements in Tamilnadu is the

direct one involving comparisons of data on place of last residence with place of current residencein order to measure life time migration. These data are readily available in the census which

permits the measurement of the streams of migration in each direction between any two areas.

Copy Right, IJCR, 2011, Academic Journals. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

The data for this study are derived from Census of India, 2001.

According to the 2001 Census data, migration estimates canbe had on place of birth and place of last residence data. As

the cross tabulations are available only for last residence data,

the study is based on the last residence data. In 2001, broadlyfour questions on internal migration were canvassed viz; place

of birth, place of last residence, and duration of residence and

reasons for migration.

Internal migration is a necessary element of normal population

redistribution and equilibrium. The mobility of people within

its national boundaries has been the subject of increasing study

in recent decades. Of the three components of populationchange viz; birth, death and migration, internal mobility has

been most difficult to measure. Such studies are thereforelabouring under a major handicap of insufficient data. There

are not enough questions on internal migration in Indian

Censuses. However it can be said that from census to census

efforts are made to gather enough data on internal migration.For instance from 1981, data has been collected on reasons for

migration.The main objectives of the study are

to explain the nature, the direction and volume ofmigratory movements in the state and compare these

patterns with the corresponding all India data.

to study some of the differential characteristics ofmigrants, their place of origin and destination and toanalyse the determining factors underlying such

movements in Tamilnadu as revealed in 2001 Censusdata.

to point out the reasons for migration and comparethem with the national data.

METHODS

The technique that is used for measuring the migration

movements in Tamilnadu is the direct one involvingcomparisons of data on place of last residence with place of

current residence in order to measure life time migration.

These data are readily available in the census which permits

the measurement of the streams of migration in each directionbetween any two areas. Regarding the quality of data it is seenfrom Table-1, that migrants by place of birth are less than

migrants by place of last residence. This is expected because itis known that place of birth data does not take into

consideration the return migrants. However the censusprovides cross tabulations only for migrants based on last

residence and hence under enumeration of migrants by place

ISSN: 0975-833X

Available online at http://www.journalcra.com

International Journal of Current ResearchVol. 3, Issue, 11, pp.089-096, November, 2011

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALOF CURRENT RESEARCH

Article History:

Received 17th

August, 2011

Received in revised form

08th

September, 2011Accepted 29

thOctober, 2011

Published online 20th

November, 2011Key words:

Internal migration

Normal populationBirth,

Death and migration,

Internal mobility

Indian Censuses.

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

7/31/2019 Download 837

2/8

of birth data will not affect the study. One important limitationof the data is that information is available only for immigrants

and hence the study analysis is confined to only immigrants.

Patterns of internal migration

Volume of Migrants in the State: It is seen from Table-1,that in 2001 15.3 million migrants based on place of birth and

15.8 million migrants based on place of last residence werereturned as migrants. As it is proposed to analyse the data

based on place of last residence, hereafter the analysis will beconfined to migrants based on last residence. The percentage

of migrants to the total population of the Tamil nadu state asof 2001 was 25.4. Out of the total immigrants 68.4 percent

were intra district migrants, the inter-district migrants

constituted 25.9 percent and inter-state migrants constituted4.6 percent. International migration was 1.1 percent

Return migrants: The data on migration based on last

residence takes into account the return migration while databased on place of birth doesnt. Therefore an attempt is made

here to work a rough estimate of the return migration by

taking the difference between the two. The number ofmigrants based on last residence was 15.82 million and the

number based on place of birth was 15.28 million in 2001, ittherefore appears that the number of return migrants was

0.545 million in 2001.

Principal Population Movements: It is seen from Table-2

that the proportion of migrants in the rural population in 2001was lower 23.1 than in urban areas (28.2) and the proportion

of male migrants (16.6) was much less than female migrants

(29.7). A comparison with the all India figures as shown in theTable show that these principal movements in Tamilnadu were

similar to the one observed at national level. For instance at

the national level the proportion of life time migrants in rural

areas was lower (28.3) than in urban areas (36.4). The samepattern is observed at the state level data that the proportion of

life time migrants in rural areas was lower (23.1) than in urbanareas (28.2). Further it is noticed that among every 100

migrants 58 were females and 42 were males in the state.

Among the rural migrants out of every 100 of the totalmigrants 64 are females and 36 are males while in urban area

the share of males being 48 out of 100 migrants was slightlyhigher than observed for rural areas. By and large the principal

population movements show that large number of migrants

(66.9 percent) moved from rural areas in India. The same forthe state is only 51 per cent. However among the migrants a

bulk of them were females both at the state and national level.(Table-2A)

Inter-censal and Long time Migrants: It is seen from the

Table-3, that out of 15.8 million migrants, 6.5 million or 41.4

per cent of them were inter-censal migrants and remaining 9.3million or 58.6 per cent were long time migrants i.e. migrants

who had made a move in 1991 or early. As regards the sexcomposition of the migrants, it is interesting to note that

among the long time migrants 61.3 percent were females and

38.7 per cent were males, however during the inter-censalmigratory movements the proportion of male migrants being

47.1 per cent as against 52.9 per cent females show that duringthe inter-censal movement the male component is fairly high

although females continue to predominate among the

migrants.

Duration of Residence: Duration of residence is an importantvariable in the analysis of the pattern of migration. In Table-4,

we have presented the percentage distribution of inter-censal

and all migrants by duration of residence and place of origin.

It is noticed that among the inter-censal migrants over 60percent of migrants have the duration of residence less than 5years and nearly 40 percent have 5-9 years duration. The data

firmly indicates inverse relationship between duration ofresidence and number of migrants. The implication appears to

be that shorter duration migratory movements are moretemporary in nature and that a large majority of them seem to

return back to their homes.

Inter-state migrants by duration of residence: It is seen

from the Table-5, that the neibouring states viz; AndhraPradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Pondicherry contribute 77.2

per cent of migrants and that the share of distant states was

22.8 per cent. It is seen that on the whole the proportion of

migrants from Kerala was the highest (30.0 per cent) followedby Andhra Pradesh (20.2 per cent), Karnataka 15.8 per cent

and Pondicherry 11.1 per cent.

Migrants by duration of residence and sex: Table-6presents the percentage distribution of migrants by duration ofresidence and sex. It is noticed that there is preponderance of

females over males for duration of residence (10-19) and

(20+) in rural areas. The gap between the male and female

migrants is very low for duration 1-4 years compared withother durations. But in all other categories of higher duration

of residence (except

7/31/2019 Download 837

3/8

Table 1. Immigrants to Tamil Nadu by place of birth and place of last residence, Tamil nadu, 2001

Type of migration Migrants by place of percentage

Birth Last residence

I-within the state of enumeration

a) Intra districtb) Inter-district

II-Inter-state

III-International

98094024469165

794148

205816

108300654096759

727172

170387

68.425.9

4.6

1.1

Total 15278531 15824383 100.0

Source: Census of India, 2001 Tamilnadu, Migration Tables

Table-2,Percentage of life time migrants in the total population by sex and type of residence for Tamilnadu and India, 2001(based on last residence)

Country/State Type of Residence Total Male Female

Tamilnadu TotalRural

Urban

25.423.1

28.2

21.216.6

27.1

29.529.7

29.4

India TotalRural

Urban

30.628.3

36.4

17.511.5

32.9

44.646.1

40.3

Source: same as in Table 1

Table 2A. Migrants classified by place of last residence and sex for Tamilnadu and India 2001.

Country/State Type of Residence Total Male Female

Tamilnadu All

Rural

Urban

15824383(100)

8073309(100)7751074

(100)

6671234(42.2)

2918171(36.1)3753063

(48.4)

9153149(57.8)

5155138(63.9)3998011

(51.6)

India All

Rural

Urban

314541350

(100)

210377392

(100)

104163958

(100)

93361809

(29.7)

43846535

(20.8)

49515274

(47.5)

221179541

(70.3)

166530857

(79.2)

54648684

(52.5)


Table 3. Inter-censal lifetime migrants with duration of stay of 10 or more years in Tamilnadu, 2001

Duration Male Female Total SR (M/FX1000)

Inter-censal life time

migrants 1991 2001

1571290

(3085776)

(47.1)

2380612

(3464888)

(52.9)

3951902

(6550664)

(100.00)

890.5

1991 or early lifetime

migrants

Duration Not stated

1825730

(3585458)(38.7)

3274214

3908220

(5688261)(61.3)

2864317

5733950

(9273719)(100.00)

6138531

630.0

Total 6671234 9153149 15824383 729


Table 4. Percentage distribution of migrants by duration of residence and place of origin, 2001(for inter-censal migrants only)

Place of Origin All Duration of stay

7/31/2019 Download 837

4/8

Table 5. Percentage distribution of immigrants by duration of residence and cohorts by states of origin, Tamilnadu, 2001

State of origin All Duration of residence (years) Duration not

stated

7/31/2019 Download 837

5/8

Table 9. Distribution of sex composition of migrants by rural urban origin (place of last residence) and distribution and distance,Tamilnadu, 2001

Last residence Male Female Sex ratio

Intra districtI. Residence in rural areas

a) Enumerated in R (R-R)b) Enumerated in U (R-U)

II. Residence in urban areasa) Enumerated in U (U-U)b) Enumerated in R (U-R)Total intra district migrants

Inter- district

I. Residence in rural areas

c) Enumerated in R (R-R)d) Enumerated in U (R-U)

II. Residence in urban areas

c) Enumerated in U (U-U)d) Enumerated in R (U-R)Total intra district migrants

Inter State migrants

I. Residence in rural areas

a) Enumerated in R (R-R)b) Enumerated in U (R-U)

II. Residence in urban areas

a) Enumerated in U (U-U)b) Enumerated in R (U-R)

Total inter-state migrants

62.5

(59.4)

(40.6)37.5

(73.8)

(26.2)

100.0

46.6

(28.2)

(71.8)

53.4

(84.9)

(15.1)

100.0

39.9

(24.6)(75.4)

60.1

(84.2)(15.8)

100.0

77.5

(77.3)

(22.7)22.3

(66.7)

(33.3)

100.0

53.6

(51.8)

(48.2)

46.4

(79.7)

(20.3)

100.0

44.9

(45.2)(54.8)

55.1

(80.8)(19.2)

100.0

298

693

900

639

483

359

981

929

646

758

393993

927730

814

Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages to sub-totals; Source: same as in Table 1

Table 10. Migrants by each distance type according to rural urban origin and destination

Distance

Type

Short distance Medium distance Long distance All distance

M F T M F T M F T M F T

R-R

R-U

U-U

U-RAll

Actuals

Rural lossto Urban

37.1

25.4

27.7

9.8100.0

2162076

15.6

60.1

17.7

14.8

7.4100.0

4478532

10.3

52.6

20.2

19.0

8.2100.0

6640608

12.0

13.1

33.4

45.4

8.1100.0

1459328

25.3

27.7

25.8

37.0

9.5100.0

1925906

16.3

21.4

29.1

40.6

8.9100.0

3385234

20.2

9.8

30.1

50.7

9.4100.0

275325

20.7

20.3

24.6

44.5

10.6100.0

338113

14.0

15.6

27.1

47.3

10.0100.0

613438

17.1

26.2

28.7

35.9

9.2100.0

3896729

19.5

48.8

20.4

22.7

8.1100.0

6742551

12.3

40.6

23.4

27.5

8.5100.0

10639280

14.9


Table 11. In, Out and Net migration to the District of the State based on the movement of the people born and enumerated withinthe state of Tamilnadu (Based on POB data)

District In migration Out

migration

Net migration

Thiruvallur 598176 52406 545770

Chennai 769607 475426 294181

Kancheepuram 417894 139641 278253Vellore 130897 180004 -49107

Dharmapuri 114636 62690 51946

Tiruvannamalai 59958 139293 -79335

Villuppuram 113443 160823 -47380Salem 147250 256089 -108839

Namakkal 162690 78562 84128

Erode 186126 129707 56419The Nilgiris 59821 27942 31879

Coimbatore 218331 142011 76320

Dindigul 100849 126472 -25623

Karur 105562 65913 37649Tirucharappalli 296309 234680 61629

Perambalur 44789 38026 6763

Ariyalur 42403 34556 7847

Cuddalore 118019 128939 -10920

Nagappattinam 76498 84536 -8038

Thiruvarur 81419 3608 17811

Thanjavur 105149 244126 -138977

Pudukkottai 59821 105844 -46023

Sivagangai 91977 84091 7886

Madurai 105640 274198 -168558

Theni 24041 4293 -30252

Virudhunagar 72203 93870 -21667

Ramanathapuram 33425 125484 -92059

Thoothukudi 68438 117803 -49365

Tirunelveli 55203 259557 -204354

Kannyakumari 14979 121666 -106687


093 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 3, Issue, 11, pp.089-096, November, 2011

7/31/2019 Download 837

6/8

I. Intra-district migrants: Persons with last residence outside

the place of enumeration but within the district. This is

normally taken as short distance migration.

II.Inter-district migrants: Persons with last residence outside

the district of enumeration but within the same state ismedium distance migration.

III. Inter-state migrants: Persons with last residence in the

states and Union Territories of India but beyond that of

enumeration. This is termed as long distance migration.

Based on the rural or urban nature of last residence and theplace of enumeration, internal migrants can also be classified

into four migration streams viz; a) rural-rural, b) rural-urban,

c) urban-urban and d) urban-rural. A combination of threetypes of migration streams gives rise to 12 streams. Table-8

depicts these streams for Tamilnadu and India. In the intra-district or short distance movement the rural to rural migration

formed the most dominant stream at the State and Nationallevel followed by rural-urban migration. The sex ratio ofmigrants indicates that during the intra-district movement bulk

of the migrants were females. It is noticed that the share ofurban to urban and urban to rural migration of both males and

females was low. Overall the share of intra-district migrants

among all migrants in the state was as high as 55.5 percent

males and 66.4 per cent females and the corresponding figuresfor all India were 44.8 and 66.0 per cent. The analysis shows

that the pattern of intra-district migration streams was similar

both at the State and National level. As regards the inter-district movement it is noticed that the volume of migration in

all the streams for both sexes except urban to urban movementhas substantially declined compared to the intra-district

movement. A distinguishing feature of inter-district movement

is that volume of urban ward movement (rural to urban andurban to urban) is higher than rural ward movement. The

overall sex ratio show the increase in the number of malemigrants compared to intra-district movement both at State

and National level. It is noticed that during the urban wardmovement the sex ratios are higher (number of males) at State

and National levels compared with rural ward movement.

The analysis shows that overall the pattern of inter-district

migration is more or less similar both at the State and National

level. However, it is seen the volume of inter-districtmigration at the State level being 37.5 per cent male and 28.6

per cent females was higher than at the National level 30.1 percent males and 23.5 per cent females. In the inter-state

migratory streams the volume has further declined in all the

four streams for both sexes at the State and National level.

Here again we observe that the urban ward movement was

much higher than rural ward movement, and that the sex-ratioswere higher although bulk of the migrants continue to be

female during the rural ward movement. Overall the volume

of male migrants being 7.1 per cent at the State is much lowerthan at the National level (25.1 per cent), while the volume of

female migrants at the State and National levels were 5.0 per

cent and 10.4 per cent respectively. The analysis shows that in

Tamilnadu 61 percent of the total migrants moved only shortdistance (intra district), 33 percent covered medium distance

(inter-district), and only 6 percent are long distance or inter-state migrants. The corresponding figures for all India were

55.4 percent, 26.8 per cent and 17.8 respectively. Thus the

analysis shows that the volume of short distance and mediumdistance migration at the state level was relatively higher than

at National level.

Rural-Urban origin of Migration: Table-9 shows the

distribution and sex composition of migrants by rural-urbanorigin. It is seen from the table that 62.5 per cent of intra-

district, 46.6 percent of the inter-district and nearly 40 per centof inter-state male migrants had rural origin. The

corresponding percentages for females were much higher

being 77.5 per cent, 53.6 per cent and 44.9 per cent

respectively. It is significant to note that among the migrantswho claim their last residence as rural, 59.4 percent intra-district, 28.2 percent inter-district, and 24.6 per cent of inter-

state migrants had also their destination in rural areas of thestate; the corresponding percentages for females were much

higher being 77.3, 51.8 and 45.2 percentage respectively. On

the other hand, it is seen that among the migrants claiming

urban origin urban ward movement is higher among both

sexes. The analysis shows that a bulk of migrants with ruralorigin tends to migrate to rural areas and that migrants with

urban origin tend to move towards urban areas.

Table 12. Percentage distributions of life time migrants of each sex in different migration streams by reason for migration,

Tamilnadu India, 2001

Area and

Migration

Stream

Males Females

Work/Employm

ent

Business

Education

Marriage

MovedafterBirth

Movedwith

household

Others

Total

Work/Employm

ent

Business

Education

Marriage

MovedafterBirth

Movedwith

household

Others

Total

India

Intra districtInter district

Inter state

TamilnaduIntra district

Inter district

Inter state

28.1

15.335.5

52.2

18.811.8

33.4

35.4

2.6

1.83.2

3.9

1.20.7

2.2

3.0

2.5

2.43.3

2.1

1.81.3

2.8

4.0

2.3

3.22.0

0.9

2.32.2

2.6

2.3

9.9

12.69.7

4.9

7.16.5

8.0

9.1

19.4

16.522.6

19.9

14.811.8

20.2

19.3

35.2

48.223.7

16.1

54.065.7

30.8

26.9

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0

100.0

1.7

1.02.5

4.0

3.12.1

5.3

5.3

0.2

0.20.3

0.3

0.30.2

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.40.6

0.6

0.90.7

1.5

1.6

69.6

73.866.0

54.6

43.944.7

43.3

41.7

2.9

2.83.4

3.0

4.13.6

5.2

6.2

11.3

6.915.5

26.9

12.69.2

19.7

21.6

13.9

14.911.7

10.6

35.139.6

24.5

23.0

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0

100.0



7/31/2019 Download 837

7/8

Migrants by Distance type: Table-10 presents the percentagedistribution of migrants by each distance type and rural-urban

origin and destination. It is seen that during the intra district

movement the rural ward movement of persons (M+F) (Rural

to rural and urban to rural) was 60.8, while during the inter-district and inter-state, the urban ward movement (R-U & U-U) of persons was dominant being 69.7 per cent and 74.4 per

cent respectively. It is seen that at each distance type ruralareas have lost to urban area and that the percentage of rural

loss to urban areas was higher in the medium distance typethan short and long distance types. Sex wise, more of rural

males are lost to urban areas.

Gaining and loosing districts in the State: A migration

analysis would be incomplete without a reference to what ishappening at the district level. It was therefore thought

worthwhile to make an assessment of the net migration at thedistrict level. There are some constraints in attempting the

district level analysis as information is available only inrespect of immigrants to districts. In order to overcome this

difficulty we have confined our discussion to the movement of

people from and to the districts of the state by people bornwithin the state. As regards the migrants born in other districts

of the state and enumerated in a particular district of the state,the data is readily available and in respect of out migrants

from the district, data has been computed from the information

about persons born in one district but enumerated in a

different district of the state. This data has been presented in

Table 11. It is noticed that out of 30 districts of the state 14districts viz; Thiruvallur, Chennai, Kancheepuram,

Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode, The Nilgiris, Coimbatore,

Karur, Tiruchirappalli, Perambalur, Ariyalur, Thiruvarur,Sivaganga have gained by the movement of persons between

the districts. The remaining districts have experienced a net

loss of persons by the excess of out migrants over immigrants.

It is interesting to note that among the gaining districtsThiruvallur tops the list. While among the loosing districts

Madurai tops the list. Another interesting feature of the data isthat barring few exceptions majority of the loosing districts

have lost more females than males may be due to marriage.

Evidentially a high-rate of net-migration to Thiruvallur,Kancheepuram and Chennai districts can be explained in

terms of their development due to industrialisation. The otherdistricts namely Namakkal, Coimbatore, Tiruchirappalli and

Erode are also gaining may be due to the textile mills, poultry

farms and industries situated in these districts.

Reason for Migration: Indian Census collected informationon reasons for migration since 1981. According to 2001

Census, the reasons were classified into Seven categories as i)

Work/Employment, ii) Business, iii) Education, iv) Marriage,

v) Moved after birth, vi) Moved with household and vii)Others. The data are available separately for each sex by intra district, inter-district and inter-state. Table-12 presents the

percentage distribution of male and female migrants byreasons for migration in Tamilnadu and India. In the section

we propose to discuss the differentials in reasons for migration

during intra district, inter-district and inter-state in respect of

Tamilnadu. It is seen from the Table-12 that nearly 20 percent

of males had reported work/employment as the reason formigration. It is significant to note that intensity of employment

as reason for migration increased significantly from intra-district (11.8 percent) to inter-district (33.4) percent) and inter-

state (35.4 percent). In contrast the proportion of thosemoving for other causes category declined with distance. The

pattern is more or less same at the National level. Migration

because of education accounted for 1.8 percent in Tamilnadu

and it increased with distance. It is also interesting to note thatthe proportion of migrants reported Moved after births thereason for migration is 7.1 percent and it increased with the

distance from intra-district (6.5 percent), inter-district (8.0)and inter state (9.1 percent). In contrast the proportion of

Moved after birth declined with distance at National Level.The proportion of migrants moved with household accounted

for 14.8 percent in Tamilnadu as against 19.4 percent for allIndia.

Among female life time migrants as one would expectmarriage was the most important reason and accounted for 44

percent, in the State, but at the National level it was muchhigher being nearly 70 percent. This proportion declined with

distance both at the state and National levels. The proportionof migrants moved with household accounted for 12.6 percent

in Tamilnadu as against 11.3 per cent for all India increased

with distance at both levels. The proportion of other categoryaccounted for 35.1 per cent and 13.9 per cent in Tamilnadu

and India respectively, only and declined with the distance atboth levels. The analysis clearly suggests that both at the State

and National Level, Employment and Moved with household

emerge as dominant reasons for male migration while in

respect of females marriage and Moved with household

emerge as important reasons for migration.

Summary Findings and conclusions: The study explains the

pattern of internal migration in the state of Tamilnadu basedon place of last residence data of 2001 Census. The analysis

reveals that 25.4 per cent of the proportion in the state was

migrants. The analysis revealed that the proportion of migrants

was higher in urban than in rural areas. Among every 100migrants females being (58) exceeded male migrants (42). At

the national level also there was preponderance of femalesover males. Among the total migrants in the State 41.4 per

cent were inter-censal migrants. Compared to the early that is

migrants in 1991 or early the number of male migrants hasconsiderably increased during inter-censal migration. As

regards the duration of residence it was noticed thatpercentage of migrants with duration of 0-4 years was much

higher than those with duration of stay of 5-9 years. 69

percent males and 75.5 female migrants were concentrated in15-59 years as against a corresponding percentage of 61.7 and

59.0 percent non-migrants. Among inter-state migrants over77 percent were contributed by neibouring States. As regards

migration streams it was noted that rural to rural migration

dominated the migration stream in the state as well as at the

National level. It was observed for the State and India thatduring the rural to rural migration the proportion of femalemigrants was much larger than male migrants. However

during the remaining three streams viz., rural to urban, urbanto urban and urban to rural the proportion of males was higher.

But the sex-ratio still found favour with females because they

were disproportionately higher among the migrants. These

findings are applicable to the migration streams even at the

national level. It was observed that in Tamilnadu State 61percent of total migrants moved only for short distance (intra-

district), 33 per cent covered medium distance (inter-state) andnearly 6 per cent covered long distance (Inter-State). At the


7/31/2019 Download 837

8/8

national level also the volume of intra district movement waslarge (55.4 per cent) but slightly lower than at state level, the

inter-district volume being 26.8 per cent for all India was

lower than at state level while the volume of inter-state

movement being 17.8 per cent was much higher than at thestate level. Nearly 55 per cent of male and 69.2 per cent offemale migrants had rural origin; consequently a large

majority of female migrants had their destination in ruralareas. As regards district level migration it was observed that

14 districts had received net migration from other districts ofthe state while the remaining 16 districts had experienced a net

loss. Thiruvallur and Chennai had made the highest gain fromother districts of the state, while Madurai had topped the list

among the losers. The volume of rural ward migration

generally decreased with the increasing distance covered. Itwas observed that at each distance type the rural areas lost by

net out- migration to urban areas. As regards the reasons formigration it was observed that the most dominant reason for

male migrants was Work/Employment, followed by Movedwith household, while for females it was marriage and Moved

with household. At all India level also a similar pattern was

observed.

CONCLUSION

The fact that the proportion of migrants was higher in the rural

areas than in urban areas at the state show that generally urban

areas did not attract a large number of migrants in the state,

which indicate that the process of urban industrialization isslow in the state. Further a heavy intra-district migration

movement supports the view that generally internal migration

in the state is of short distance. Even among the inter-statemigrants a large majority of them were from bordering states

which further supports the short distance migration. Migration

between the districts has some interesting revelation as for

instance out of 14 gaining districts, 3 districts are located inthe northern part of the state, 4 districts in the western part of

the state and 4 districts are located in the central part of thestate.

Out of 16 loosing districts, 11 districts are located at thesouthern part of the state. 4 districts are located in the northern

part. Overall, the southern districts are loosing more than the

northern districts, may be due to lack of development in

southern part of Tamilnadu. Combining inter-district andinter-state migration (it is here the urban ward movement washigher) pattern with reasons for migration one can safely

conclude that male migration to urban destination was largelyfor Employment. The male life time migration to rural areas

should not however be explained fully by specific reasons foremployment; education etc., as reasons like returning back

after retirement; back home as one could not secureemployment at destination., fell into the category of others. By

and large, the patterns of internal migration in the state of

Tamilnadu and at national level were similar.

REFERENCESMitra, A. and M. Murayama, Rural to Urban Migration: A

District level Analysis for India, IDE Discussion paper

No.137, University of Delhi, New Delhi.Bhagat, R.B. 2008. Assessing the Measurement of Internal

Migration in India,Asia and Pacific Migration

Journal,Vol.17,No.1,pp.91-102.Census of India, 2001. Data Highlights, Migration Tables D1,

D2andD3, Tamilnadu, Registrar General of India.Kaur,Gurindar, 1996. Migration Geography, New Delhi,

Anmol Publications.Kurian, C.T.1980. An Analysis of internal migration in

Tamilnadu, working paper, Madras Institute of

Development Studies, Chennai.

Srivastava, R. and S. Sasikumar, 2003. An Overview of

migration in India, its impacts and key issues, JawaharlalNehru University, New Delhi.

*******


Documents

Download 837