Disadvantages Of Seasonal Migration

Circular migration is the fastest growing type of temporary labour migration in countries that are experiencing rapid urbanisation and an increase in manufacturing. These jobs are very attractive to those who come from marginal areas where daily wages are too low to make a living (Deshingkar 2005). For the purpose of this research the definition of a seasonal migrant given by Rani and Shylendra (2001) has been taken. It defines seasonal migrant as one who migrates in the lean season into urban areas to get employment , wherein the rural migrants do not settle permanently in the destinations but continue to maintain close links with their areas of origin, where they return regularly and remit a substantial part of income from their earnings.

Arguments not in favour of seasonal migration are mainly that labour migration is linked to long term indebtedness, for a majority, and fails to generate net cash returns and perpetuates below subsistence livelihoods (Mosse, Gupta & Shah, 2005). The remittances are spent on consumption and little is left for investment. Thus the villagers travel between village and destinations repeatedly and are unable to come out of this vicious cycle (Korra 2010).

Another argument is that the poorest rarely migrate because a minimum level of material assets is required to make the investment for migration; for travel, purchasing supplies to take to the destination and leaving some money behind for running the household (Deshingkar, Start 2003)

Those marginalised i.e. the landless and the SCs, who are accommodated in the non-farm sector are probably in the lower rungs of the seemingly stratified non-farm labour market as most of the non-farm jobs are associated with significant entry barriers in terms of age, education and gender (Jatav, Sen concluded that watershed development programmes does not curb migration but reduces its intensity. It also changes its nature from coping to income maximization. Also, the bargaining power of labourers increase significantly as the availability of work has increased Vis a Vis the labour pool (Shah, 2001).

However, the review of watershed projects in Gujarat by Shah and Memon (1999) suggests that the benefits especially, through irrigation, has been fairly selective and cover a small subset of the watershed community. The positive impact on crop shift and productivity as well as income remain confined mainly to those who received direct benefits from water harvesting structures like check dams. Since number of such structures in a village generally do not exceed 2-3, the actual number of household receiving these benefits may range between 40-60. This leaves a large number of the village communities outside the net of the direct benefits either in terms of employment or crop productivity and income on a sustained basis. Developing common property resources is another avenue through which large number of poor household could be benefitted but such activities are difficult to undertake mainly because of the problem