Economists hint at deviations in migration numbers

A section of policy experts has raised questions over the data used by the Economic Survey 2016-17 to estimate interstate migration in the country, hinting at anomalies in the exercise.
 
The survey extracted data from the Census and the railways to estimate interstate migration between five and nine million annually. Based on the Census alone, the estimate was five to 6.5 million annually during 2001-2011.
 
These estimates challenge the widely held view that migration in India is low and not increasing at a rapid pace. But a closer look at the underlying Census data suggest that those estimates should be treated with caution.
 
The problem with the Census data on migration is twofold. First, the number of migrants with duration of residence 10 years and above rose dramatically by 70.9 per cent between 2001 and 2011. This trend is observed across all states. But if that were the case shouldn’t they have been recorded in the 2001 Census?
 
“The claim made by the Economic Survey is that the rate of migration has accelerated during 2001-11. The disaggregated data from population censuses, however, show that it is the high growth of migrants with more than 10 years’ duration in 2011 that explains the phenomenon. If that is the case, one would infer that migration during nineties was very high and not during 2001-11,” said Amitabh Kundu, a former professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
 
Kundu said he and P C Mohanan, retired director general of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) have “written a note raising this issue”.
 
In response to queries sent by Business Standard, the office of the chief economic advisor said this data was not used in the Economic Survey. It further clarified that they had not analysed the questions raised by Business Standard and were therefore not in a position to answer them analytically.
 
The other oddity in the latest Census data is the sharp decline in the number of migrants whose duration of stay in the current residence is not stated.

In 1991, the percentage of migrants with “duration not stated” to total migrants was 8.4 per cent. By 2001, it rose to 14.5 per cent. But this trend reversed in 2011. The duration of stay was not stated for a mere 0.17 per cent of all migrants.
 
What caused these anomalies? Census officials told Business Standard on condition of anonymity they were in the process of reconciling various trends. They ruled out errors in data collection on grounds that enumerators were given the same instructions as in the previous Census rounds. They contend there was no change in the definition used, nor was there any difference in the way data was captured.
 
Economists, though, want greater clarity. “This shift in 2011 is particularly intriguing as the percentage of migrants not reporting their duration of stay at the destination had gone up in 2001 from 1991,” said Kundu.
 
“This (rise from 1991 to 2001) was explained in terms of migrants not wanting to admit that they are living at the destination for a short period, as certain benefits were linked to five or ten years of stay at the destination in several states” he added. But then what explains this sudden reversal in trend?
 
One possible explanation is that the sharp fall in the “duration not stated” category in 2011 has been compensated by higher numbers in the “10 years and above” category. But in the absence of concrete evidence, it is difficult to say for sure. These anomalies raise the question whether the Economic Survey over-projected the migration numbers? Kundu believes so. According to his estimates, the decadal net rural to urban migration is less than 15 million over 2001 to 2011.