The Hi !Am Ec Agic Lt Mics

-9 .4„ iLlB R. A R. Ya cuf-tp-i--:T SEPM W) THE HI !AM APR 6 '958

1 r. 7,!;t1ITI.Itm AGIC LT OF Ar4 U. S. DUAilll'Ari_111. EC MICS

(Organ of the ndian Society of Agricultural Economics)

Vol. XII OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1957 No. 4

CONTENTS

ARTICLES Gramdan—Implications and Possibilities D. R. Gadgil Capital Formation and Use in Agricultural Deve- lopment • • • • Kenneth H. Parsons Role of Monetisation in Agriculture • • • • J. K. Sengupta Patterns of Rural Mobility • • • • • • V. R. Joshi The Concept of Class • • • • S. M. Shah

NOTES AND NEWS Determining the Plough Unit Norm • • G. D. Agrawal Economics of "Japanese Method" of Paddy Cultivation • • • • A. S. Kahlon and . A. R. Khan Foodgrains Enquiry Committee Report M. L. Dantwala

Bench Mark Survey • • .. • • M. B. Desai Minimum Wages in Agriculture N. A. Itilujundar Seminar on Co-operation and Village Panchayats (Mrs.) Indira A. Iyer F. A. 0. Development Centre on Farm Planning and Management for Asia and the Far-East World Food and Agriculture 1957 The Social Science Research Council—"Scope and Method Series"

GLEANINGS BOOK REVIEWS (see inside cover) Rs. 4• 00 -- • BOOK REVIEWS

Lakdawala, D. T. Taxation and the Plan M. L. Dantwala 101

Dandekar, V. M. Working of Bombay Tenancy V. M. J:akhade 101 and Khudanpur, Act, 1948, Report of Inves- G. J. ligation

Timmons, John F. Improving Agricultural C. H. Shah 103 Tenancy

Karve, D. G. Rural Development (Report (Mrs.) Tara Shukla 105 on Foreign Tour)

Kale, D. N. Agris—A Socio-Economic A. R. Desai 106 Survey

Ward, A. D.(Ed.) Goals of Economic Life (Miss) A. J. Dastur 108

EDITORIAL BOARD

Prof. M. L. Dantwala Joint Editors Dr. M. B. Desai

Shri V. M. Jakhade

Shri G. B. Kulkarni

Dr. G. D. Agrawal

The copyright and all rights of reproduction and translation of articles, book reviews and correspondence published in THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS are reserved by the Society. Application for permission to translate or reproduce any material contained in it should be made to the Honorary Secretary, The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, 46-48, Esplanade Mansions, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Bombay-1. PATTERNS OF "RURAL MOBILITY

By , ,/ V. R. Joshi*

The Classical economists studied mobility on the assumption that the movement of workers was in response to the wage-differentials. Unemployment was not associated with the immobility of labour, and the studies in mobility were confined to its relation with wages.' But according to the recent researches in mobility the "inter-area movement of labour appears indeed to perform not its traditional function of equalizing wage-rates, but the quite different function of equalizing unemployment ratios in different areas."2 According to the survey of an American expert : "most of the mobility was job-orientated rather than wage-oriented."3 The importance of mobility studies in the labour market has thus been shifted from its relation with wages to unemployment. In India where the wages are already at the subsistence level and are determined more by custom and convention and where a high degree of unemployment exists, it may be said that mobility performs the function of unemployment equalization rather than of wage equalization. In India very few studies in mobility have been conducted. In a regional study of agricultural employment and wages ,like the present one, a study of mobility is, therefore, of special importance.

In this study migration refers to a change in the usual place of employment involving movement of the individual from one labour market to another. As such it is an investigation only in the geographical mobility and does not under- take to analyse the occupational and industrial mobility and also mobility in and out of the labour market.

The investigation involves a 'group analysis' of mobility. Here 'group' refers to categories like cultivators, agricultural labourers, non-agriculturists and also to caste and age groups. As an analysis of the mobility of agricultural labourers in isolation from the agricultural population is not much meaningful, some data have also been collected regarding the mobility of the other socio-economic groups in the rural sector. In this study an attempt is made to find out what groups or types of persons show greatest mobility. The data relate only to a period of 12

* Mr. Joshi is a Research Scholar in the University of Lucknow. The present paper is a part of his doctoral dissertation which is based on his first-hand investigation in Eastern U.P. 1. "The movement of labour from place to place is insufficient to iron out local differences in wages. But the movement does occur and recent researches are indicating more and more clearly that differences in wages are the main causes of migration". Hicks, J. R., "The Theory of Wages'. Macmillan Co., London, 1932, p. 36. See also 'Mobility in the Labour Market'—jafferys Margot, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1954, pp. 1-4. • 2. Reynolds L. H.:'Wage Differences in Local Labour Markets', American Economic Review, Vol. 36, No. 3,June 1946, p. 375. See also—'Oxford Economic Paptrs' Nos. 1, 2 and 4, 1939-40. Makower, H., Marshak, J. and Robinson, H. W.—`Studies in Labour Mobility.' 3. 'Labour Mobility and Economic Opportunity'—Essays: The Technolgical Press of M.I.T. 1954. Mayers, Charles A:'Labour Mobility in Two Communities', p. 75, also p. 71. PATTERNS OF RURAL MOBILITY 33

months (i.e. Jan. 1954 to Dec. 1954)and indicate mobility during a specified period. We have tried to verify a few general assumptions about mobility in relation to our economy, e.g., a differential rate of mobility as caused by the varying social and economic factors ; and variations in response to economic incentives at different places and within different age-groups.

Intensity of Migration The peasants of India are well known for their attachment to home and hearth and hence they are immobile. In 1951, 1,535,901 persons emigrated from U.P. to the other States of India, "compared with the number of emigrants in 1901 was 1,526,362 ; in 1911 it declined to 1,408,552 ; in 1921 it declined to 1,400,284 ; but in 1931 it increased slightly to 1,559,646. The number of migrants has thus been fluctuating round one and a half million figures and the proportional volume to the total population is rather negligible when compared with emigration from the European countries."4 As the Report further observes, "this immobility in general is associated with the preponderance of agriculture which requires constant attention from the cultivator and thus discourages movement. The caste system, early marriage and joint family encourage the home keeping habit and lack of education, diversity of languages and culture create impediments in the flow of population from one part to the other. At the same time the "Pull" factor is not much in opertion to encourage the people of this state to move, though the 'Push' factor is present in the State in spite of the obstacles created by the social fabric."5 According to the Census figures for 1931, 3.4 per -cent migrated from districts where they were originally born. In U.P. out of the net migration of about 2 lakhs of persons, 31.3 per cent were from the Eastern region, indicating that people in this region are relatively more mobile than in other regions of Uttar Pradesh. Due to the incomparable number and size of the units and also methods of enumera- tion of the migrants it is difficult to find out the relative mobility for this region and only the absolute figures for the region can be calculated.

The intensity of migration is measured by the proportion of the migrants to the total population. To find out the degree of mobility it is important to note that only one or two workers have migrated out of a family. Thus so far as the potential migrants are concerned they are usually the individual workers in a family, but so far as the mobility and earning capacity is concerned, mobility is more a function of the family unit than of the individual workers. Therefore, the percentage of the total migrants to the total number of families has also been calculated. Table I gives figures for the total number of migrants, total population and the total number of families for the rural sector as a whole in the districts investigated by us. The total migration from the region is 5.2 per cent of the total population. The low proportion of migration in Bahraich is explained by the large unculti- vated tracts providing better employment opportunities. In Banaras the lower migration is explained by the prevalence of cottage industries,e.g., the silk industry, in the rural areas providing better employment opportunities. Some factories have also come up in the district, e.g., factories connected with Railways, Cotton Mills, Glass Works, etc. Deoria and Ballia indicate high magnitude of migration

4. Census of India 1951, Vol. 11-A Report, U.P., p. 53. 6. Ibid., p. 63 34 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

TABLE I

Total Total No. of mi- Percentage Percentage Districts population No. offa- grants of Col. 4 to of Col. 4 to milics Col. 2 Col. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Basti ...... 3721 706 204 5.5 28.9

2. Gorakhpur .• .. .. 3178 509 155 4.8 30.4

3. Deoria ...... 2735 446 195 7.1 46.0

4. Azamgarh .. .. . -. 2882 440 149 5.2 34.9

5. Ballia .• .. .. 1109 171 88 7.9 51.5

6. Gazipur .• .. .. 2299 312 117 5.1 37.5

7. Banaras ...... 2360 376 74 3.1 19.7

8. Jaunpur .• .. .. 2114 317 101 4.8 31.8

9. Gonda • • • • 2446 412 132 5.4 32.0

10. Bahraich .. 1056 196 26 2.4 • 13.3

Total .. 23,900 3,885 1,241 5.2 31.9

probably because both the districts are usually flood stricken, have a relatively high density of population and have the lowest average holding in the State and therefore provide comparatively little employment opportunities. The rest of the districts indicate more or less a similar degree of migration.

Direction of Migration

To evaluate the response of the potential migrants to the incentives to move as affected by distance and differential rate of urbanisation, it is important to analyse the direction and place of migration. Table II illustrates the effects of distance and direction on mobility. Uttar Pradesh being divided into six regions, inter-regional migration implies migration from the investigated region of Eastern Uttar Pradesh to the other regions of U.P. and the inter-state migration implies migration from the Eastern Uttar Pradesh to the States of India other than Uttar Pradesh. Inter-State migration also includes about 2.4 per cent of the total migrants, migrating (mostly from theDeoria and Azamgarh Districts) to East Pakistan and Burma. PATTERNS OF RURAL MOBILITY 35

TABLE II

Migration within. the Districts District Region Inter-Re- Inter-State gional Total No. Rural Urban . of Migrants 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 (Per (Per (Per (Per (Per cent) cent) cent) cent) • cent)

1. Basti 00 204 35 17.1 50 24.5 30 14.7 24 11.8 65 31.9

2. Gorakhpur 00 155 8 5.2 43 27.7 29 18.7 11 7.1 64 41.3

3. Deoria •• 195 16 8.2 15 7-7 7 3.6 39 20.0 118 60.5

4. Pammgatil 00 149 3 2.0 12 8.0 15 10.1 4 2.7 115 77.2

5. Ikalia .. 88 • • • • •. .. 2 2.3 5 5.7 81 92.0

6. Gazipur 00 117 4 3.4 17 14.5 12 10.3 24 20.5 60 51.3

7. Barlaras 00 74 4 5.4 39 52.7 2 2.7 2 2.7 27 36.5

8. Jaunpur .. 101 7 6.9 15 14.8 11 10•9 12 11•9 56 55-5

9. Gonda 00 132 27 20.5 23 17-4 4 3.0 41 31.1 37 28'O

10. Bahraich 00 36 9 34.6 12 46.1 4 15.4 1 3.8 :. • •

Total 1241 113 9.1 226 18.2 116 9.4 163 13•9 623 50.2

There is a significantly greater proportion of inter-state and inter-regional migration, accounting for 50.2 and 13.9 per cent of the total migration respec- tively. Whereas only 9.4 per cent migrated from one district to the other districts of the region and migration within the districts accounted for 27.3 per cent of the total migration. As the inter-state and inter-regional areas provide more economic opportunities and therefore better incentives to move than the region investigated it shows that the existence of employment opportunities is a very important incentive to migration.

Another trend that becomes obvious from the above table, is that from the districts which are relatively more urbanised a lesser proportion of workers have migrated to inter-regional and inter-state areas. From the districts which are less industrialised a higher proportion of workers has migrated to inter-regional and inter-state areas. Workers are more willing to move within a local labour market than to migrate spatially from one region to another. If incentives to migrate are available within the local labour market by commuting to nearby cities, the frictions to movement caused by distance are less than if they have to commute to long distances. Thus provided the economic opportunities are available, mobility declines with distance. 36 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Out of the 623 inter-state migrants 50.4 per cent migrated to Bengal, 14.6 per cent to Assam, 12.8 per cent to Bihar, 10.3 per cent to Bombay, 7.1 per cent to other States and 4.8 per cent migrated outside India. The migration shows a strong tendency to Eastward migration which accounts for 77.8 per cent of the migrants, the Westward migration includes only 17.4 per cent. In Assam workers migrate usually to the plantations and in Bihar to the coal-mines. Bengal and Bombay mostly provide employment in the factories. For both these States, in which economic opportunities may fairly be presumed to be equal, migration shows wide variation. The main reason for this disparity is the friction caused to mobility by the distance factor. It thus substantiates the earlier statement that mobility declines with the distance.

Migration from the over-crowded agricultural tracts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh to the industrial centres has been an usual feature. 'It is said by someone,' wrote Edward Blunt in the Census Report of 1911, 'that there is not a single family in the Banaras division which has not at least one member abroad in Bengal and Assam: Five districts, viz., Ballia, Gazipur, Banaras, Azamgarh and Jaunpur accounted for 125,539 immigrants to only three districts in Bengal, viz., Hooghly, Howrah and 24 Parganas studded with the rivers in industrial towns and to Calcutta in 1921."6

The locational aspect of industrialization is very important in this connection. Unless the mobility of surplus agricultural labour is properly channelised through planning, a large amount of migration may be wasteful. It is contended that under the present planning in India many major industries are concentrated in particular regions while in others no such industries are being developed. As we have found that distance is inversely correlated with mobility, the new industrial areas will attract labour from those very regions and if there is no large surplus of agricultural labour in those regions then it may so happen that "as a result of the shift of local agricultural labour into such industries, agricultural output in these locations may fall unless labour-saving devices are introduced simultaneously to ease the resultant local shortages of agricultural labour." On the other hand, in other regions a large amount of surplus agricultural labour may remain. Such a situation will thus create high employment and low employment regions and there might be wasteful flow of migrants. Thus in an underdeveloped country like India, "the industrialisation policy needs to be so, designed as to bring as many industrial jobs to the regions of surplus agricultural labour as the regional economic conditions permit, and to move to more distant industrial jobs as much as possible of the surplus agricultural labour in regions where economic conditions do not permit industrial development."'

Migration within Different Caste-Groups

As caste system has been suggested as a frequent cause of immobility and a large number of agricultural labourers come from the lower caste-groups, an analysis of the rate of mobility in the different caste.-groups in the rural area should be

6. See 'Migratory Movements in Underdeveloped Countries' by Pierre Wigny, Inter- national Labow Renew,July 1953, p. 6. 7. 'Action Against Unemployment', I.L.O., p. 157. PATTERNS OF RURAL MOBILITY 37 interesting. All the castes have been,for this purpose, classified into three groups.8 The first group includes all the higher castes, the second group includes all the intermediary castes (which are mostly agricultural castes) and the third group in cludes the depressed castes. The following table illustrates the migration within different caste-groups for all the districts.

TABLE III

MIGRATION WITHIN THE CASTE-GROUPS

Group I Group II Group III

Districts Total Total P.c. Total Total P.c. Total Total P.c. No. of migr- of No. of mig- of. No. of mig- of col. fami- ants col. fami- rants col. fami- rants 9 to 8 lies , 3 &2 lies 6 to 5 lies

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Basti .. .. 137 74 54.0 398 94 23.6 171 36 21.1

2. Gorakhpur .. .. 97 64 66.6 263 47 17.1 149 44 29.5

3. Deoria .. •. 88 44 50.0 269 106 39.4 89 45 50.6

4. Azamgarh .. •. 79 48 60.8 170 37 21.8 191 64 33.5

5. Ballia .. •. 42 35 83.3 87 35 40.2 42 18 42.9

6. Gazibad . • •. 68 36 52.9 112 33 29.4 132 48 28.8

7. Banaras .. •. 64 17 26.6 186 34 18.3 126 23 18.2

8. Jaunpur .. .. 95 41 43.1 122 33 27.0 100 27 27.0

9. Gonda .• •. 94 39 41.6 221 84 38.0 97 9 9.3

10. Bahraich .. .. 60 9 15.0 90 7 7.8 46 10 21.4

Total 824 407 49.4 1918 510 26.5 1143 324 28-3

8. Dr. Radha Kamal Mukerjee in his article on "Caste, Distance and Tension in Vil- lages" in the book "Inter-Caste Tensions" published by the J. K. Institute of Sociology, Ecology and Human Relations has divided the rural castes of India into these three grades: (i) Upper Castes include Brahmans (priests, learned professots), Thakurs (Rajputs)' Khattiri and Vaishyas (Traders). (ii) Intermediate Castes: Kurmis Ahirs (Cattle Breeders), Kachhis (Vegetable growers), Jats, Gujars, Lohars' (Black Smiths), Kumhars (Potters), Gadazias (Shepherds), Nais (Barbers) and Telis (Oil Pressures). (iii) Lower Castes: Chamars (Tanners and Leather workers), Dusadhs, Doms. Koris, Pasis (Toddy drawers), Dhanuk and Bhangis (Scavengers) and Muslim Julahas (Weavers). 38 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

The higher caste-group evidences the greatest mobility and the next in order is the depressed caste-group. The middle caste-group is the least mobile group. This group includes mostly the peasant-proprietor and tenants with substantial rights and larger holdings and those who are mostly self-employed in agriculture and therefore show a low propensity to migrate. The depressed castes-group which includes both the cultivators and agricultural labourers also indicates a low propensity to migrate. The above table shows that the percentage of migrants from the higher castes-group is 49.4. Whereas in the lower castes-group it is only 28.3. Thus the caste system produces frictions to the mobility of labour. The higher social group shows higher propensity to migrate and lesser frictions to mobility, and the pfopensity to migrate declines with the declining social status.

Mobility within Different Occupational Groups An investigation into the relative mobility and immobility of different occupational groups is significant to find out whether a particular group of workers is a relatively immobile section of the labour supply, and therefore, to analyse and explain the proper functioning of the labour market.' The rural community for the purpose of such an analysis is divided into 3 important occupational groups, (i) the cultivators and tenants class, (ii) the non-agriculturists and (iii) the agricultural labourers. The following table gives figures about the total number of families, total migrants and the percentages of the total migrants to total families in each occupational group for all the ten districts.

TABLE IV

MOBILITY IN DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS

Cultivators and Non-Agricultu- Agricultural Tenants rists Labour

District No. of No. of Per- No. of No. of Per- No. of No. of Per- fami- migra- cent- fami- migra- cent- fami- migra- cent- lies nts age lies nts age lies nts age

1. Basti .. .. 511 163 31.9 03 24 25.7 102 17 16.7 2. Gorakhpur .. .. 344 108 31.9 70 20 25.7 95 27 28.4 3. Decmia .. .. 320 148 46.3 67 27 28.6 59 20 33.9 4. Azamgarh .. .. 303 117 38.6 39 14 40.3 98 18 18.4 5. Ballia .. .. 108 60 55.5 28 15 35.9 35 13 37.1 0. Gazipur .. .. 211 77 36.5 47 28 53.5 54 12 22.2 7. Banaras .. .. 203 52 25.6 106 16 59.5 67 6 9.0 8. Jaunpur .. .. 227 65 28.6 31 13 15.1 59 23 39.0 9. Gonda .. .. 337 115 34.1 35 9 41.9 40 8 20.0 10. Bahraich .. .. 161 20 12.4 12 1 25.7 23 5 21.7

Total •• .. 2725 925 33.9 528 167 31.6 632 149 23.6

9. "The only meaningful definition of labour markets is one which calls each place of employinent a separate market". Sec-'Balkanisation of Labour Markets,' by Clark Kerr in 'Labour Mobility and Economic Opportunity,' Essays by E. Wight Bakke and others, p. 96. PATTERNS OF RURAL MOBILITY 39

The cultivators and tenants-group shows the greatest mobility, the non- agriculturists-group also indicate a high degree of mobility. The agricultural labour group is relatively immobile. For nearly all the districts it indicates relatively low degree of mobility. This immobility is influended by many factors. Here we find the working of the labour market frictions. Probably the most important single factor creating the friction to mobility is the financial difficulty. It makes this group immobile by reducing their ability to move. Secondly, the agricultural labourers attached to their employer is an important institutional factor creating immobility in this group, as will be shown below. Thus the investigation probably negates the usually accepted hypothesis that the under-employed group of any economy is generally the most mobile group. Due to the frictions to mobility (which we shall discuss later) existing in the labour market, the 'agricultural-labour group' which is the most under-employed group of our economy is also the most immobile section of our labour supply. We find that the mobility varies with the economic status and in the case of 'agricultual-labour group' the immobility is co-existent with unemployment, and the other relatively better employed groups of our economy show a greater propensity to migrate.

We shall now analyse the relationship between the mobility and the nature of employment of agricultural workers. The attached character of the employment of agricultural labourers, which is a widespread practice in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, introduces some personal element into the relationship of the employers and employees. The attached agricultural labour works for his land- lord in lieu of some land given to him. It might also be due to the reason that the attached workers have a more regular employment as compared to the casual workers. The table below gives the percentage distribution of migrants and the proportion of the attached and casual agricultural labour families in the various districts.

TABLE V

Proportion of Percentage of Migration in

Districts Attached Casual All Attached Casual families families families families families

1. Basti 00 00 34-3 65.7 16.7 8.6 21.8

2. Gorakhpur 00 010 55.8 44.2 28.4 33.9 21.4 3. Deoria •• .. 11.9 88.1 33.9 28.6 34.6

4. Azamgarh 00 00 69.4 30.6 18-4 11.7 33.3

5. Ballia 00 00 62.9 37.1 37-1 40.9 30.8

6. Gazipur 00 00 68.5 31.5 22.2 21.6 23.5

7. Banaras 00 00 67.2 32.8 9.0 O.0 27.2 8. Jaunpur •• .. 40.7 59.3 39.0 25.0 48.6

9. Gonda .. 00 55.0 45.0 20.0 0.0 44.4 21.7 40-0 7.7 10. Bahraich .. 00 43.5 56.5

Total • • • • 51.1 48.9 230 17.9 29.4 40 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

The table shows a higher degree of migration among the casual labour families as compared to the attached labour families in all the districts except Bahraich and Gorakhpur, where the proportion is higher for the attached labour families. In Bahraich the higher proportion of migration among the attached labour families is due to the fact that the attached workers are not given any plot of land in lieu of harwahi and probably also due to the smaller size of sample.

Further the proportion of attached labour families is inversely correlated and the proportion of casual labour families is positively -correlated with migration (the correlation of co-efficient being :=17-. 394), showing that the districts having higher proportion of casual labour families or a lower proportion of attached labour families have a higher degree of migration, whereas the districts having a lower proportion of casual labour families or higher proportion of attached labour families have a lower degree of migration. Thus the nature of employment greatly influences the labour mobility.

Mobility Differentials According to Age, Marital Status and Sex in the Agricultural Labour-Group

To study the response of persons of different ages to the incentives to move, the persons are divided into ten-year age-groups and a Cross tabulation of migration with age, sex and marital status is given below.

TABLE VI

MIGRATION WITHIN DIFFERENT AGE-GROUPS, MARITAL STATUS AND SEX

Age-Groups Total Married Unmarried Males Females Migrants

(Figures in brackets axe percentages)

0-15 21 2 19 14 7 (14.1) (9.5) (90.5) (66.7) (33.3)

15-24 52 33 19 48 4 (34.9) (61.5) (39.5) (39.3) (7.7)

25-34 38 28 10 36 2 (25.5) (73.5) (26.3) (94.7) (5.3)

35-44 18 15 3 17 1 (12.1) (83.3) (16.7) (94.4) (5.6)

45-54 15 13 2 • 13 2 (10.0) (86.6) (13.4) (86.6) (13.2)

55-64. 5 4 1 4 1 (3.3) (80.0) (20.0) (80.0) (20.0)

Total 149 95 54 132 17 (100.0) (63.8) (36.2) (88.6) 01.4) PATTERNS OF RURAL MOBILITY 41

Mobility appears to be declining with bigger age-groups. The high mobility of the relatively young adults may be due to fewer personal attachment, but with growing age the attachments to community become stronger. They also become less adaptable and this decreases their willingness to move. The rate of mobility is highest within the age-group 15-24 and this goes on diminishing with higher age-groups. Thus it is significant that migration is mostly among those age-groups in which some of the best agricultural workers are available. The rate of decline in mobility is highest from the .age-group 25-34 to 35-44 and this rate of decline is even faster than the rate of increase in mobility from age-group 0-14 to 15-24. It is because of the capacity and ability in the age-groups 15-24 and 25-34 that the best and the most competent workers migrate.

The above table indicates that relatively more of the married persons, than the unmarried, migrate with reference to higher age-groups. The proportion of the married migrants in each age-group is continuously rising, whereas the proportion of unmarried migrants in each age-group shows a downward tendency. The absolute and relative proportions of total married migrants to total unmarried migrants are also very high. This indicates that the marital status is not a hind- rance to mobility. Whereas the increasing trend with age of mobility among the married migrants indicates that as with increasing age the number of dependents of the married increases so with the increasing responsibilities there is a relative increase in migration. With the age-group 0-15, the proportion of unmarried migrants is very high as compared to married, which is due to the social institution of early marriage, which makes their attachment to the community stronger and makes people less mobile. Comparatively at middle ages married people are more mobile than the unmarried. And the married people themselves are more mobile at the extreme ages than at middle ages indicated by the steep decline in mobility from the age-group 25-34 to 34-45, probably because the number of dependents tends to be the largest in these age-groups.

Mobility rate of the men workers as compared to women workers is very high. Out of the total number of 143 migrants only 17 or 11.4 per cent were women. And a large proportion of these women migrants were from the age- group 0-15, who might be assumed to have gone as dependents along with other workers. The proportion of women migrants in the other age-groups is almost insignificant. In the age-groups 15-24 and 25-34 which form as the two . most important age-groups accounting for 60.4 per cent of the total number of migrants only 4.0 per cent were women. Thus we find that the mobility rate for men workers is much higher than for women workers. It is relevant here to mention an important factor suggested by Herbert S. Parnes, which complicates any analysis of mobility differentials between men and women, that "because of differences in the occupational composition of the male and female labour force, variations in mobility rates and patterns between men and women may be more a function of occupation than of sex."1° Although there might be some truth in the above statement, but as there is a traditional distribution of labour in India based on sex, the occupational composition of the male and female labour force is itself a function of sex.

10. Parnes, Herbert S. :'Research on Labour Mobility,' Bulletin 65, 1954, p. 109, Social Science Research Council, New York. 42 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Mobility and Wage Rates

According to the traditional wage and labour allocation theories we would expect migration from the lower wage area to the higher wage area, so as to ful- fill its wage-equalisation function. As more than 64 per cent of the migration is outside the region we shall first analyse the relationship of wage rates to the inter- regional and inter-state migration. As the direction and places of migration are so varied and diversified, it will be very difficult here to formulate a detailed study of the wage-differentials existing in those areas, we shall assume, as a working hypothesis, the wage rates to be equal in the different industrial centres to which the migration is taking place, and analyse how the wage-differentials in the region investigated is related to the mobility differentials. Under such a situation, according to the traditional theory, we would expect a higher mobility from the lower wage area and a lower mobility from the higher wage area. We, however, find that the co-efficient of correlation between migration and wage-rates" comes to —.001 ; which establishes no co-relation between wage-rates and mobility.

Now even making allowance for the generalizations involved in the assumption of equality of wage rates in the.migrating industrial centres, we can say that they will not be so great enough as to establish any significant inverse correlation between the wage rates and mobility. Moreover the differentials in wage rates of the migrating area, if they are large enough to affect the migration rate, will only change the direction of migration and not make any significant difference in the mobility rate from the region investigated.

Analysing the relationship between wage rates and mobility within the regions, we find that there is a significantly high degree of positive correlation (co-efficient of correlation being + .73). It shows that mobility is higher from the high wage areas and lower from the low wage areas. That there is a positive correlation suggests that the families with high wage rates are better able to finance migration than the families with lower wage rates. This hypothesis will however be better substantiated by analysing the relationship between mobility and the in-. come level of the agricultural labour families, which is attempted in the next section. Thus as we do not find any evidence as to the inverse relationship between mobility and wage rates we can say that the wage differential is not a very important factor in causing migration.

Mobility and Income Level

While analysing mobility within the different occupational groups, we found that the cultivators and tenants class, who belong to the higher income level group had a higher degree of migration as compared to the agricultural labourers who evidently belong to the lower income group. If that hypothesis is to be true we would also find a positive relationship between mobility and income level of the

11. As women form a very insignificant proportion of the agricultural labour migrants, the wage rates for the male workers has only been taken into consideration. The inclusion of the women's wage rates would have highly depressed the wage rates of the area and thus lead to an incorrect conclusion. PATTERNS OF RURAL MOBILITY 43

agricultural labourers in the different districts.12 The following table gives the proportional distribution of migration and average annual income for the agricultural labour families and also for the casual and attached agricultural labour families in different districts.

TABLE VII

All Families Attached Families Casual .Families

Districts Migration Income Migration Income Migration Income (Per cent) (in Rupees) (Per cent) (in Rupees) (Per cent) (in Rupees)

1. Basti .. 16'7 503.2 8.6 481.5 21.8 514.0

2. Gorakhpur .. 28.4 539.7 33.9 506.2 21-4 582.0

3. Deoria .. 33.6 435.6 28.6 388.7 34.6 441.9

4. Azamgarh . 18.4 605.3 11•7 608.1 33.3 578.8

5. Ballia .. 37.1 504.7 4:0.9 545.1 30.8 436.3

6. Gaziput .. 22.2 547'S 21• 6 484.5 23.5 616.5

7. Banaras .. 9.0 478.1 0.0 491.1 27.2 451•6

8. Jaunpur .. 39.0 502.1 25.0 516.0 48'6 592.2

9. Gonda .. 20.0 508.4 0.0 526.1 44.4 4.86.7

10. Bahraich .. 21'7 390'I 40'O 403.5 7.7 381.3

Analysing the proportion of migration and the income level of all the agricultural labour families we do not find any relationship between them (the coefficient of correlation being+ .06). A further analysis, however, shows that nearly all the higher income level districts have higher mobility except Deoria and Azamgarh. We find that this inverse correlation between income level and mobility in Deoria and Azamgarh is due to the influence of other variants, the most important being the nature of employment. As we have observed in the preceding analysis that migration has inverse correlation with the proportion of attached labour families and positive correlation with casual labour families, the higher mobility in Deoria is more due to the very high proportion of casual labour families (88.1 per cent) than to the lower income level ; and conversely

12. The publication-Action Against Unemployment mentions that "in the less developed countries the geographical mobility of agricultural labour is exceedingly low. Furthermore, the degree of its mobility varies inversely both with the distance and with the income level of the agricultural population." It further mentions that, "the income factor is particularly important in the case of urider-employed agricultural labourers, who are generally too poor to meet the cost of moving." If the agricultural labour is poor enough to meet the costs of moving we would expect agricultural labourers with higher income levels to be more mobile than the agricultural labourers with lower income levels, as they will be more able to finance migration; and as such'expect a positive correlation than the inverse correlation as mentioned by the Report. 44 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS in the Azamgarh district the lower degree of migration is more due to the very high proportion of attached labour families (69.4 percent) than to the higher income level.

As attachment of labour has been a very important variable creating friction to mobility,for analysing the relationship between mobility and income level, it is necessary to remove its influence from mobility. We shall, therefore, analyse the _relationship of mobility and income level separately for the attached and casual labour families, and the relationship of the two variables in the casual agricultural labour group will establish their true relationship. The income level of the attached labour families is inversely correlated to mobility (the coefficient of correlation being- .321); whereas the income level of the casual labourfami- lies is positively correlated with mobility (the co-efficient of correlation being -1- .348). Analysing the income levels thus separately we are now in a position to conclude that although their relationship is not very significant, the income level is positively correlated with mobility. Thus with higher income level we find higher mobility and with the lower income level lower mobility. From the above analysis we are also able to infer that lack of finance is also a factor creating immobility, although it is not a very significant factor.

Indebtedness and Migration

Here it will also be interesting to study the relationship between indebtedness and' migration. The following table gives the average indebtedness and the proportion of migration for the attached and casual agricultural labour families. In this connection proper allowance has to be made for that portion of the debt which has been incurred for financing the migration. We, however, find that the proportion of debt incurred for financing the migration to the average indebtedness of family is almost negligible.

TABLE VIII

Attached families Casual Families

Districts Migration Indebtedness Migration Indebtedness (Per cent) (in Rupees) (Per cent) (in Rupees)

1. Basti 00 00 8.6 58.2 21.8 55-0

2. Gorakhpur • • 33.9 68-7 21.4 58.1

3. Deoria • • • • 28.6 174.3 34.6 131.8

4. Azamgarh . • 00 11.7 59.3 33•3 72.9

5. Ballia .. 00 40.9 69.8 30.8 59.5

6. Ghazipur .. • • 21.6 88• 9 23.5 124.9

7. Banaras .. .. 0.0 95.2 27.2 92-1

8. Jaunpur .. .. 25.0 81.9 48.6 78.2

9. Gonda .. 00 0.0 68.5 44.4 37.7

10. Bahraich 00 00 40.0 2046. 7.7 27.9 PATTERNS OF RURAL MOBILITY 45

It has been contended that many agricultural workers run away from the villages because of the heavy burden of debt which they are unable to repay. We should, therefore, expect, other things considered, a positive correlation between indebtedness and migration. The table shows a sufficiently high degree of positive correlation (-I- .488) between indebtedness and migration in case of attached labour families, whereas in case of the casual labour families the correlation is not so significant(+ .200). This broadly indicates that more workers migrate from families with higher burden of debt. Thus along with the other variants indebtedness is also a factor causing migration.

Mobility of Workers and Employment

We shall now analyse the relation between employment and mobility of workers. The following table gives the proportional distribution of migration and average annual employment (in days) for the agricultural labourers in the different districts.

TABLE IX

Districts Average Annual Migration Employment (Days)

1. Basti •• •• •• 273.1 16.7

2. Gorakhpur .. • • • • 305.6 28.4

3. Deoria •• •• •• 282.5 33.9

4. Azamgarh •• •• •• 302.3 18.4

5. Ballia ...... 277.3 37.1

6. Banaras ...... 311.1 9.0

7. Gazipur ...... 324.8 22.2

8. Jaunpur • • • • • • 300.2 39.0

9. Gonda ...... 305.4 20.0

10. Bahraich ...... 305.3 21 • 9

The table shows a significant inverse correlation between employment and migration (the co-efficient of correlation being -.351) i.e., more persons are migrating from districts providing fewer employment opportunities to the workers; Whereas smaller proportion of workers have migrated from those where the employment is higher.

Probably the relationship between mobility of workers and employment Would have been still more significant if the workers' knowledge ofjob opportunities was perfect. The ignorance of workers about the existence of employment opportunities in other areas works as an obstacle to migration. There has been 46 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS absence of any machinery for the collection and dissemination of information to the workers about wage-differentials and other significant job characteristics that from one in the villages. It has been observed during the investigation there village there was a very high degree of migration while from the others was place. no migration at all, and that this migration was directed to a particular of migrants The co-efficient of standard deviation of the relative proportions a high degree calculated for all the 60 villages investigated is .6, indicating variability in the proportion of migrants from the different villages. The of of reason is that in the absence of any proper machinery for the dissemination of in- knowledge about wages and employment opportunities, the only source migrated. formation is the relatives and acquaintances who have previously better Therefore, the villages from which some migrants have gone out, having villages, from sources of information send out migrants regularly. While the of information which no such "pioneer migrants" have gone out, lack sources of variability and have a limited degree of migration. Thus this high degree the contention in the proportions of migrants from different villages supports the availability that there is a large gap in the knowledge of rural population about oppor- of employment opportunities. The imperfect knowledge of employment for the tunities is thus a definite barrier to mobility, and if a proper machinery other job dissemination of information about wages, job opportunities and properly characteristics is provided, much of the functionless migration will be channelised. inducing Thus the existence ofjob -opportunities is a more important factor in The workers to move than the existence of the prevailing wage-differentials. Labour for it is the persistent underemployment in the rural sector. reason of in agriculture being mostly variable costs and a very large proportion costs cost of labour force engaged in agriculture being family labour, the opportunity in agriculture such labour is very low. Due to the persistent underemployment from this agri- and the low opportunity cost of labour, workers can be drawn unemployed, and cultural labour surplus at the minimum supply price of those much less therefore, "the pressure for equalisation of wage differentials becomes than it would be in a full employment situation."13

See also 'Research 13. The Structure of Labour Markets—Reynolds, Lloyd G., p. 247. on Labour Mobility'—Parnes, Herbert S. pp. 144-187.