Impacts of Migration on Households in the Dry Zone, Myanmar
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Impacts of Migration on Households in the Dry Zone, Myanmar Bussarawan Teerawichitchainan School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University John Knodel Population Studies Center, University of Michigan Published by HelpAge International Myanmar Country Office Sein Villa 25/E, Thiri Mingalar Avenue Street, Ward No.7, Yankin township, Yangon, Myanmar Tel (+95‐1) 66 55 74 www.helpage.org www.ageingasia.org Authors: Bussarawan Teerawichitchainan School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University John Knodel Population Studies Center, University of Michigan Acknowledgement We thank the European Union and governments of Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America for their kind contributions to improving the livelihoods and food security of rural people in Myanmar. We would also like to thank the Mitsubishi Corporation, as a private sector donor. Disclaimer: This document is supported with financial assistance from Australia, Denmark, the European Union, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Mitsubishi Corporation. The views expressed herein are not to be taken to reflect the official opinion of any of the LIFT donors. Copyright © HelpAge International 2017 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc/4.0 Any parts of this publication may be reproduced without permission for non‐profit and educational purposes. Please clearly credit HelpAge International and send us a copy or link. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6 2. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE DRY ZONE .................................. 9 3. DATA AND METHODS ........................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Definition of migration ................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Sample design ................................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Survey Instruments ........................................................................................................ 15 3.4 Caveats and study limitations ........................................................................................ 16 4. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND INDIVIDUALS IN STUDY AREAS .................. 17 4.1 Demographic characteristics ......................................................................................... 17 4.2 Material wellbeing ......................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Economic conditions ...................................................................................................... 20 4.4 Sources of income .......................................................................................................... 20 4.5 Socio‐demographic characteristics of individuals in sampled households ................... 22 5. CHARACTERISTICS AND PATTERNS OF MIGRATION IN THE DRY ZONE ............................... 24 5.1 Demographic characteristics of migrant‐sending and non‐migrant households .......... 24 5.2 Economic status of migrant‐sending and non‐migrant households.............................. 25 5.3 Sources of income among migrant‐sending and non‐migrant households .................. 29 5.4 Characteristics of migrants and their migration patterns by migrant‐source areas ..... 31 5.5 Gender differences in characteristics of migrants and their migration patterns .......... 33 5.6 Comparison between economic and non‐economic migrants...................................... 35 5.7 Differences in migration patterns by wealth status of origin households .................... 37 6. MATERIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONTACTS FROM MIGRANTS ........................................ 39 6.1 Patterns and differentials in material support to origin households by migrants ........ 39 6.2 Patterns and differentials in social contacts from migrants .......................................... 44 6.3 Perception of origin households regarding migrants’ wellbeing ................................... 49 7. IMPACTS OF MIGRATION ON DEPENDENT CHILDREN ......................................................... 52 7.1 Prevalence of children experiencing parental absence due to migration ..................... 52 7.2 Socio‐demographic characteristics of children in the Dry Zone .................................... 54 7.3 Provision of care, instrumental and material support for children ............................... 57 7.4 Patterns of unmet needs experienced by children under age 15 ................................. 63 8. IMPACT OF MIGRATION ON DISABLED HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ........................................ 66 8.1 Prevalence and types of disabilities in the Dry Zone ..................................................... 66 1 8.2 Socio‐demographic characteristics of disabled household members ........................... 67 8.3 Patterns and differentials in receipt of care among disabled household members ..... 69 8.4 Who provides care for disabled household members? ................................................. 72 8.5 Patterns of care needs and unmet needs for care ........................................................ 74 9. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 78 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 83 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The analysis of the 2017 Dry Zone Migration Impact Survey is one of the first studies using a systematic survey approach to examine the impacts of migration on households and populations remaining in the Dry Zone areas of central Myanmar from where the migrants originate. This report examines recent migration during the last five years. The focus is on migrants who moved beyond township for at least one year. Migration is common in the Dry Zone. About two thirds of migrants are men. Migrants tend to first move at the ages of mid‐ and late‐20s. They are usually either adult children of household heads or household heads themselves. Most migrate because of economic reasons, particularly for employment opportunities in the non‐agricultural sector. The migration decision is usually made not only by the migrant but also in consultation with immediate family members such as parents and siblings. Nearly three quarters of migrants received at least some financial support from origin households to set up at the destination. Internal migration to another region or state in Myanmar is more common than international migration. It is more common for men than women and from households in middle wealth quintiles than those in the top or bottom wealth strata to participate in international migration. Remittances from international migrants tend to be significantly larger than those from internal migrants. Several perspectives exist for interpreting the impacts of migration on origin households and their members. The alarmist perspective views extensive migration especially from rural to urban areas as having adverse effects on households and populations remaining in sending communities potentially resulting in labor shortages and leaving young children and frail older persons in rural areas to fend for themselves. The household strategy perspective views migration more positively as a way to diversify economic risks for the origin households and as benefiting both migrants and family members who remain behind. The modified extended family perspective posits that advances in transportation and communication technology permit family members to maintain relationships and fulfill at least some of the associated obligations although in modified forms. Our findings are least consistent with the alarmist perspective. Migrant‐sending households do not appear particularly disadvantaged. Migrant‐sending households in rural areas do not experience shortages of working‐age adults as they tend to be larger and have more working‐age adult members than non‐migrant households. Migrant‐sending households are better off in terms of household wealth and size of land ownership. They are also less likely to report income inadequacy. Migrant‐sending households may more likely be better off economically in the first place. Given the nature of our data source, we are limited in explaining causality between migration and household material wellbeing, e.g. in terms of income and household possessions. A majority of both migrant‐sending and non‐ migrant households in the Dry Zone rely on the work of household members as their major 3 income source. At present, only a quarter of urban migrant‐sending households and a third of their rural counterparts rely on remittances as their main source of income. Other evidence also contradicts the alarmist perspective. We find that parental migration has few adverse effects on dependent children under age 15 remaining in the Dry Zone. Adverse impacts appear