1. Rural-urban Migration and its Implications for Food Security in Bangladesh Rural-urban Migration and its Implications for Food Security in Bangladesh Institution: Department of Statistics, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST) Research Team: Dr. Md. Zakir Hossain, PI Professor, Dept of Statistics, SUST Dr. M. Mizanul Haque Kazal, CI Chairman, Dept of Development & Poverty Studies, SAU Dr. Jasim Uddin Ahmed, CI Associate Professor of Economics, Ministry of Education

2. CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION CHAPTER IIMETHODOLOGY 2.1Research Methods 2.2Analytical Tools and Techniques CHAPTER IIILITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER IVHOUSEHOLD PROFILE AND MIGRATION DIVERSITY 4.1Profile of Surveyed Household 4.2Diversity of Migration Strategy CHAPTER VSTATUS AND PREDICTORS OF FOOD INSECURITY 5.1Perception, DCI, Food Expenditure and CSI Methods 5.2General Coping Strategies to Food Insecurity Situation 5.3Predictors of Household Food Insecurity CHAPTER VI IMPACT OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY STATUS 6.1 Consequence of Migration on different Household Indicators and Fulfillment of Expectations 6.2Impact of Migration on Food Security through NELM Models CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Contents of the Report

3. Key Research Questions (i)Who migrates? Are the food insecure households more prone to migration? (ii)What are the different types of migration including child migration? (iii)Are the rural-urban migration flows concentrated towards some big cities only? (iv)Is the food security status of migrant households different from that of non-migrant households and how? (v) What are the Asian evidences and policy implications of rural- urban migration associated with food security? (vi)What is the impact of migration on food security status at origin? (vii)What strategies are to be taken to optimize the rural-urban migration outcome to food security?

4. Objectives and Expected Outputs Objectives To sharpen policy-makers’ understanding of the diversity of rural to urban migration strategies and their impacts on household and individual food security in sending and receiving areas, To provide information on potential interventions to strengthen migrant household food security. Expected Outputs (i)Identification of migration diversity through exploring the typology and mapping of its patterns, (ii)Determination of food security status of the migrant households and impact of migration on their food security, (iii)Review of Asian literature to find out evidence on the association of food security, rural urban migration and poverty reduction, (v)Formulation of intervention to address food security of migrant households.

5. Data and Methodology The study has adopted following techniques to gather the primary data: Household-level survey at origin Tracer survey at destination Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Key Informant Interview (KII) In addition, the study has analyzed the HIES-2010 and Panel data of Dr. Mahbub Hossain to compare the relevant findings of the survey data. Sample Design for Household Level Survey & Tracer Survey The study provided the main Indicators in 2 rural domains, according to the East-West divide reported by the World Bank study of Bangladesh The sample size determination formula yields that 750 migrant households are required to cover in each domain. The study has adopted cluster (PSUs of BBS) sampling method and covered 30 clusters in each domain (using systematic PPS) Ultimately, 3000 units of analysis have been covered: - 1500 Migrant and 750 Non-migrant households at origin - 500 Migrant and 250 Non-migrant households at destination

6. Analytical Techniques Step-1: Measure the flow of migration including selectivity The flow of rural-urban migration has been explored through descriptive statistics in different dimensions including flow-mapping. Step-2: Measurement of the status of food security (i) Perception analysis; (ii) Direct calorie intake (DCI); (iii) Food expenditure; (iv) Coping strategy index (CSI) score Step-3: Identification of the predictors of food insecurity The binary multiple logistic regression model (BLRM) has been applied to identify the predictors of food insecurity. Step-4: Impact of migration on food security  The impact of migration on food security at origin has mainly been studied using 2-stage and 3-stage NELM models  In particular, instrumental variable (IV) regression has been employed to study the impact of migration on per capita calorie intake.  The similar model has also been used by simultaneous consideration of migration determinants, remittance behaviors and income.

7. 2-Stage NELM Models 3-stage NELM Models The basic equation for household income, (as a proxy of household food security) according to the NELM hypothesis can be expressed as k = on-farm, off-farm; where To model migration, this study considers using count regression functional form, particularly the Poisson distribution form, since the number of migrants is non- negative. Where FS measures the per capita calorie-intake as a proxy food security status at the household level; Mig measures the number of migrants per household; X vector encompasses the household characteristics; Z is a vector of instruments

8. Concluding Remarks from Review of Asian Evidence Positive Impact At origin:Positive Impact at Destination: -Poverty reduction & gain of assets - Human resource development - Food security at household level - Women empowerment - Fertility control - Change in family composition - Urban growth - Availability of workers for urban services -Availability of manpower for industry, particularly manufacturing, development sector Negative Impact At origin:Negative Effect at Destination: - Labor depletion in a few cases - Loss of agricultural productivity - Family disintegration -Increase of women and children chores - Unplanned urbanization - Growth of slums - Environment pollution - Ultimately, ill consequences on transport, healthcare & other service sector Migration Pattern/Diversity/Causes: - Mainly young people strive for migration - Migration is higher from environmentally fragile areas - Increasing trend of temporary and circular migration - Feminization of internal migration - Concentration of migration towards big cities - Major causes of migration are wage differentials, population pressure etc.

9.  About 29.2% study population were below 15 years of age, about 66% fell 15-64 years and about 4.4% were of 65 years or above.  Approximately 21% of the adult men earned incomes from agriculture, about 22% were unemployed, 12.6% engaged in study and the rest earned from off-farm activities. On the contrary, three-quarters of the women were engaged in household work, 9% engaged in study, about 11% were engaged with agriculture.  About 21% of the study population aged 5 years or older was found to have no education, about 36% were found to have primary-level education, about 39% were found to have secondary/higher secondary level education and only 5% people attained graduate level education.  The analysis of general features, housing condition and asset score of the surveyed households according to the migration status indicates that the migrant-households are better positioned than their non-migrant counterparts in terms of housing condition and possessing wealth. General Features of the Study Population for RUM-2012 Survey data

10. Landholdings, Income & Expenditure Pattern of Migrant and Non- migrant Households for Three Data Sets Landholding, Income & Expenditure RUM-2012 (origin) HIES-2010Panel Data Migrant Non- migrant Migrant Non- migrant Migrant Non- migrant Average Size of Land114.373.9108.676.9160.992.6 P-value P<0.01P<0.10 P<0.01 East (Mean) 88.370.2 West (Mean) 140.177.6 Average On-farm Income5372046733 47694 555836145350910 P-valueP<0.12P>0.10 P<0.10 Average Off-farm Income1156298901486742771445585533413 P-valueP<0.01P<0.10 P<0.01 Average Food Expenditure 7320568157 72306 71241 P-valueP<0.05 p>0.10 Avg. Non-food Expenditure 6834551306 49801 44871 P-valueP<0.01 P<0.10 Total (n)150974642766224241352

11. Flow of Migration in Bangladesh Percentage of households reporting migration of any member by residence OriginData SourcePeriod Destination Total households DomesticAbroadMixed RuralHIES-20102006-20104.849.25 - 7840 UrbanHIES-20102006-20101.626.85 - 4400 RuralRUM-20122006-20109.29--8033 RuralRUM-20122001-201122.2511.471.908033 Rural-EastRUM-20122001-201119.2015.702.404793 Rural-WestRUM-20122001-201127.204.701.103240

12. Rural-Urban Migration Flow from Study Clusters/Villages in Bangladesh Migration Rate according to East-West Divide East 4.38% West 6.86% Total5.30%

13. Are the food insecure households more prone to migration? Comparison of some basic indicators between migrant (non-migrant in 2000 and migrated during 2001-2008) and non-migrant households (non-migrant since 2000) using panel data Basic Indicators Migrant Households Non-migrant Households Average Landholdings (in decimals) 149.12116.81 Average Per Capita Income (in Taka) 106739009 Calorie intake (% of HHs) Extreme poor (1805 K.Cal) 18.722.0 Moderate poor (2122 K.Cal) 25.131.1 Non-poor 56.247.0 Poor on the basis of self perception Extreme poor 9.213.0 Poor 32.235.9 Vulnerable 35.736.2 Solvent 23.014.9 Total Households (n) 2831133

14. Selectivity of Migrants Age distribution of migrants at the time of migration Educational status at the time of migration

15. Selectivity of Migrants: Occupation Occupation Pre-migration period (%) Occupation at Destination (%) EastWestBothEastWestBoth Job/service 5.62.54.032.228.530.3 Business 2.41.51.93.62.73.1 Petty traders/ hawker 4.51.93.17.95.56.7 Garment worker 1.1.81.010.714.812.8 Wage labourer 13.57.610.521.317.319.3 Student 36.638.137.415.620.218.0 Household work 4.94.74.84.64.94.8 Agriculture 10.921.516.41.12.01.6 Unemployed/Others 20.621.321.02.84.03.3 Total (n) 80184916508018491650

16. Destination of the migrants by region Intended Nature of Migration Type of Migration% of Migrants Permanent6.7 Study21.7 Temporary ( precariousness of their employment) 66.9 Seasonal4.7

17. Exploration of the Child Migration: Comparison of pre-migration occupation and occupation at destination of the child migrants Pre-migration occupationOccupation at destination

18. Factors for Migration Push Factors% of Migrants Poverty/food insecurity 23.9 Unemployment 30.4 Underemployment/ Demonstration effect 11.4 Insufficient education facilities 23.1 Others 11.2 Pull Factors % of Migrants Better job opportunities 39.9 Better schooling 22.8 Relatives/friends there 13.8 Wage differential 13.6 Others 9.9

19. Extent of Food Insecurity both at Origin and Destination Perception Method At OriginAt Destination Migrant HHs (%) Non-Migrant HHs (%) Migrant HHs (%) Non-Migrant HHs (%) Had been anxious about food in last 3 months (normal insecurity) 21.427.26.29.0 Had been bound to take less than 3 meals in a day (moderate insecurity) 12.816.22.60.8 Had been bound to sleep in hunger (severe insecurity) 5.07.01.00.4 No food insecurity78.672.893.891.0 DCI Method % of households below hardcore poverty line 13.518.15.28.2 % of households below absolute poverty line 32.638.329.735.9 CSI Method Low/Medium CSI Score12.315.03.65.8 High CSI Score 9.112.2 2.63.1 Average CSI Score 30.330.426.027.8 Total (n)1509746499256

20. Adopted Coping Strategies Strategies a. Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods b. Undertaking more jobs and/or working longer hours c. Borrow food or rely on help from a friend/relative d. Purchase food on credit e. Gather wild food, hunt or harvest immature crops f. Consume seed stock held for next season g. Send household members to eat elsewhere h. Sending children for working i. Send household members to beg j. Limit portion size at mealtimes k. Restrict consumption by adults in order for children to eat l. Feed working members at the expense of non- working members m. Reduce number of meals eaten in a day n. Skip entire days without eating

21. Predictors of Food Insecurity using Logistic Regression Model: Relative risk against different categories of the covariates VariablesModel 1:Normal food insecurity Model 2:Moderate food insecurity Model 3:Severe food insecurity Landholding None ® 1.000 1-49 0.346***0.340***0.385** 50-99 0.149***0.124***0.088*** 100-249 0.094***0.085***0.060*** 250 & above 0.048***0.088***0.050*** Occupation of the Household Head Agriculture Farmer ® 1.000 Labor 1.628***1.506*1.171 Service 0.618*0.5910.397 Others 1.537**1.518*1.825 Education of the Household Head Illiterate ® 1.000 Primary 0.792*0.633***0.604** Secondary 0.664***0.478***0.462*** Post-secondary & above 0.315***0.283***0.289 ® Ref. category; *** Sig. at 1% level; ** Sig. at 5% level; * Sig. at 10%

22. Cont. Model 1:Normal food insecurity Model2:Moderate food insecurity Model3:Severe food insecurity Debt Status of the Household Did not receive loan ® 1.000 Received loan 2.484***2.699***2.432*** Location (East-west divide) West ® 1.000 East 0.8471.255*2.547*** Dependency ratio 1.004*** 1.006*** Family Size 0.9610.892***0.818*** Tilling Technology Non-mechanized 1.000 Mechanized 1.0631.1061.094* Sex of the Household Head Male 1.000 Female 1.822***1.994***1.899* Constant 0.7330.433**0.135*** ® Ref. category; *** Sig. at 1% level; ** Sig. at 5% level; * Sig. at 10%

23. Impact of Migration on Different Household Indicators (Perception-based) Socio-economic indicators Impact/Change due to migration (% of households) At OriginAt Destination PositiveNegativePositiveNegative Frequency of meal4.80.74.43.4 Quality of food12.03.226.511.4 Food security condition17.85.229.710.6 Educational status of the migrants 14.50.016.60.0 Working hours of the household members 25.710.635.712.2 Land Size (in Decimal)5.470.81.831.7 Type of House6.11.158.112.2 Number of rooms5.30.911.240.1 Type of toilet6.21.447.910.2 Television9.02.516.817.4 Fridge2.90.58.44.8 Economic condition of the HH 13.42.617.84.6

24. Labor compensation, fulfillment of expectations and involvement of women & children in economic activities due to migration EastWestBoth Additional cost of labour compensation due to migration (%) Yes19.84.512.5 Average amount (Tk.) 5760±47414157±29765481±4521 Fulfillment of expectations due to migration (%) Don’t know7.12.84.9 Satisfactory51.561.656.6 Partially satisfactory33.329.831.5 Unsatisfactory8.15.87.0 Involvement of women and children in economic activities due to migration (%) Increase32.222.327.2 Decrease6.710.98.8

25. Impact of Migration on Food Security through 2-Stage NELM Models Dependent Variable: Logarithm of per capita calorie intake Endogenous Variables: Number of migrants in the household Instrumental variables: Migration network, Share of male/female in 16-39 age groups at household level Variables GMM estimates of IV regression CoefficientP>z Number of migrants of household.0218720.002 Land (operative) of household.00004770.034 Occupation of HH (Farming).02651170.048 Occupation of HH (Labourer)-.01171380.401 Occupation of HH (Service).01184290.493 Education of HH (Years of schooling).00290680.004 Age of Household Head.00062580.072 Region (East=0, West=1).00202330.787 Housing (poor quality=0, Good quality=1).01274420.146 Religion (Muslim=0, Non-Muslims=1).01949660.080 Score of household durables.00002450.931 Sex of the household head (Female=1).03040340.098

26. Cont. VariablesCoef.P>z Number of adult male members -.0116060.024 Tilling technology (mechanized=1).01162390.291 Distance from commercial centre.00025340.197 Cropping nature of land (multi-crop=1).00463910.637 Constant7.5927650.000 No. of observations2255 R-squared centered & R-squared uncentered0.0375 & 0.9995 F-test6.23 (P-value=0.000) Tests of overidentifying restrictions: Sargan N*R-sq test statistic 1.433 (P-value= 0.2313) Basmann test1.422 (P-value= 0.2330) Hansen-J-Statistic1.488 (P-value= 0.2225) Test for endogeneity of Number of Migrants (H o : Regressor is exogenous) Wu-Hausman F-test; F(1, 2237) 2.968 (P-value= 0.085) Durbin-Wu-Hausman chi-sq test; chi-sq(1)2.988 (P-value=0.084)

27. Impact of Migration and Remittance on Household Income using 3-Stage NELM Models Dependent Variable: On-farm income; Off-farm income without remittance Endogenous Variables: No of migrants in the HH; Amount of annual remittance Instrumental variables: Migration network, Share of male/female in 16-39 age groups at household level, Relation of the migrants with household head Explanatory variables RemittanceOn farm incomeOff farm income Coef.P>tCoef.P>zCoef.P>z Remittance-0.13907440.342-1.0031350.000 Number of migrants, predicted2317.2550.57339470.60.11338218.010.010 Total operative land of Household-15.110370.000417.12550.00028.936490.376 Education of HH (Years of schooling)149.70930.392963.80060.1724677.4050.000 Age of Household Head2.2852040.974-309.47960.336299.37480.369 Region (East=0, West=1)2310.5290.07317186.380.000-37694.120.000 Housing (poor quality=0, Good quality=1)4144.3070.006-8846.8360.03621187.330.000 Religion (Muslim=0, Non-Muslims=1)-4941.4680.018-10435.310.0305661.7030.453 Household headship (Female=1) -268.65740.939-20634.860.145-6384.1190.789 Distance from commercial centre -114.19540.003419.93840.001413.61620.001 Household size -332.92330.578-2956.9470.2653622.470.204 Tilling technology (mechanized=1) -5833.0860.0039684.9680.09113920.830.123 Cropping nature of land (multi-crop=1) -11298.730.000-4839.2860.251-14804.770.016 Number of adult male member 3394.9130.009-7491.2280.218 R 2 centered and R 2 uncentered0.5310 & 0.62830.1082 &0.3506 F-test with P-value36.72 (p<0.0001)28.43 (p<0.0001)20.97 (p<0.0001) Sargan N*R-sq test Statistic0.0353.480 P-value0.85170.0621 Hansen-J-Statistic0.0422.363 P-value0.83740.1243

28. Conclusions In rural Bangladesh, over half of the households are functionally landless and the migrant-households are economically better positioned. Internal migration flow is higher from the West and international migration is higher from the East. Food insecure or poor are not more prone to migration. The migrants tend to concentrate to capital city and district headquarters. The young people (aged 15-29 years), males and sons/daughters of the household heads are more exposed to rural-urban migration. Temporary migration dominates over other types of migration and independent/single migration over family migration. Literate people are more prone to permanent migration and illiterate people are more prone to temporary migration. Type of migration from food insecure households significantly differs from that from food secure households. Poverty, unemployment and poor educational facilities are found out as the main push factors. In contrast, better employment opportunities, better schooling, and wage differentials are sorted out as the main pull factors.

29. Conclusions… About three-fifths of the migrants sent remittances (average amount of Tk.38397) and household heads mainly decide to utilize remittances. All the estimates of food insecurity indicate that non-migrant households are more vulnerable to food insecurity. The estimates also show that the migrants at destination are significantly less food insecure than their origin counterparts. Reliance on less preferred and less expensive food items and purchase of food on credit are explored as the top coping strategies of food insecurity. Landholding, occupation and education of the household head, debt status, location, dependency ratio, family size and household headship are determined as predictors of household level food insecurity. Perception-based estimates on change pattern of some socioeconomic indicators reveal that migration puts mixed impact with positive net impact. NELM-models determine that rural-urban migration exerts significantly positive impact on food security through different dimensions. The major findings covered by the review of Asian literature are corroborated by the findings of the present study.

30. Recommendations Improve educational facilities for quality education in rural areas, which matches the skill needs of rural labour markets including vocational and training facilities. The government should increase efforts in promoting a smooth school- to-work transition for rural youth, by enhancing employment opportunities for youth in rural areas. Promote programmes to enhance more and better opportunities for employment and entrepreneurship development in rural Bangladesh to provide alternatives to distress rural-urban migration, especially for youth. The Government should also invest in better labour market information systems and job information services so that youth can access to better jobs and undertake migration in a more informed manner. Proper micro-finance programs can be designed and executed for linking remittances to financial inclusion by favouring better and safer conditions for money transfer through formal channels and thus link migrants, especially youth, to financial organizations

31. Recommendations… Actions to prevent and eradicate child labour, especially its most hazardous forms, with particular attention to unaccompanied child migrants. Decentralize both administrative and developmental activities to discourage the concentration of rural-urban migration to capital city in particular and other big cities in general. Government can strengthen the land reform program giving more emphasis on organizing form than distributive form to ensure and enhance the access of the landless poor households to land so that they can earn their survival livelihoods resorting to the newly accessed landholdings. The migration from densely populated rural areas to sparsely populated rural areas like new islands, hilly regions etc. can be motivated and encouraged through taking proper arrangements and making sustainable facilities for employment generation and income generating activities. Public Private Partnership (PPP) can be effectively applied for establishing SMEs in rural areas using foreign remittances to enlarge income generating facilities for an optimal migration process.

32. Recommendations… Undertaking motivational programs by the government and the civil society to motivate the corporate management to extend their CSR (corporate social responsibilities) strategies to the internal out-migration prone areas to facilitate local amenities for education, health and income generation. Motivation of the local industrialists, merchants, and other wealthier persons towards establishing different services-oriented institutes from the view-point of philanthropy or trusteeship rather than profit and income generating SMEs in rural areas. Local government should make proper arrangements for safety and security in rural areas for a sound environment to make rural stay hassle and anxiety free to discourage rural-urban migration and encourage reverse migration. Finally, to optimize the internal migration and its outcome in Bangladesh through discouraging the rural-urban migration flow and encouraging the urban-rural migration flow, overall infrastructural facilities, both social and physical, must deserve to be increased to provide amenities for living a sound human life in rural areas. In this respect, a balanced economic development programme can be undertaken and executed for both rural and urban areas.

33. Overall Message of the Study 1)The study explores that different kinds of adversity at origin compel a stipulated section of rural population to strive for migration to urban end where different kinds of prosperity attract them. 2)Different impact determining analyses based on descriptive, perception-based and model-based estimates identify that impact of rural-urban migration is significantly positive on food security in particular and overall living condition in general. 3)The majority of the findings of the present study are found to be aligned with those extracted from the review of literature, particularly on Asian countries. 4)One final message is that since migration is a revealed preference of the migrants, it cannot be stopped; rather, the policy-makers can make policies to better manage migration flows by providing support to leverage the opportunities arising from migration and remittances.