Migration and Rural Livelihood in
Case-studies of five rural
sites
In
Amhara, Oromia and SNNP Regions
A paper presented to
The 4th International Conference on Ethiopian Economy
Draft Report
Feleke Tadele
February 2006
1. Background
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Scope and approaches to the study
1.3.
Migration in
1.4. Theoretical framework
2.
Empirical
findings from the research sites and emerging issues
2.1.1. Reasons for in- and out-migration: rural sites
2.2. Type of work and rural migrants
2.3. Spatial patterns and labor flows
2.4. Preferences regarding urban centres and geographic locations
2.5.
Barriers and facilitating factors for labour
migration
2.6.
The
consequences of labour migration
3.
Implications
for Policy and Practice
4 Summary and Conclusion
References
ABSTRACT
The paper
examines key issues affecting rural livelihood and migration in Ethiopia
The paper is
informed by empirical data, which were collected by the WeD- Ethiopia Programme
in five rural research sites: namely, Koro Degaga and Turufe Kecheme (rural
villages in ONRS), Dinki and Yetmen (villages in Amhara Region, ANRS) and
Imdibir (a Gurage village in Southern Nations and Nationalities People Region,
SNNPR).
The study found
out that migration is important for rural survival of the poor people across
all the sites. Seasonal migration constitutes the main aspect of rural
livelihoods for male and female as well as poor, middle and rich individuals
and households in the studied communities. Particularily, migration served as
safety net mechanism during crisis, a strategy for lessening pressure on rural
‘starvation’ plots, a means for maximizing rural livelihood opportunities and
augmenting income from small farms even in a normal agricultural year.
Moreover, rural migrants served the urban labor needs for construction of
workers, social services and domestic work. The paper argues that migration on
its own does not result in radical improvements for most individual migrants,
their households and communities. However, viewed in the broader context of
rural-urban linkages, migration can play a positive transformative role. The
author suggests that the poverty alleviation strategy of the country should
take into consideration the multi-dimensional links that inherently exist
between rural and urban areas and promote development measures that capitalize
on the positive aspects of mobility and migration.
List of Acronyms
CSA Central Statistical Authority
CSO Central Statistical Office
DCI Development Cooperation
EPRDF Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic
HIV Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus
KA Kebele Administration
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
ONRS
PA Peasant Association
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
STD Sexually Transmitted Disease
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region
UNDP United Nations Development Program
WeD Well being in Developing Countries
GLOSSARY
Biqil Fermented grain used to brew local drinks
Boye a Wolayta word used to describe yams.
Iddir a funeral society formed by individuals to help each other during the death of their members or the relative of their members.
Kebele The lowest urban adminstration unit
Meskel An Amharic word meaning “cross” used to describe the celebration of the Finding of the True Cross on September 27.
Sefer An Amharic word used to describe a small community neighborhood
Shiro Ground horse beans or cheak peas used to make stew
Wereda District level government administration unit.
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND MAPS
Table 1: Household
members away from the village in May 2004
Table 2: Gender of
absent household members
Table 3: Reason
for absence
Table 4: Location where
household members would seek work
Table 5: Household
members away from the village
Table 6: Household
members’ interest in working outside the community
Table 7:
Type of support received
in or from urban areas
Table 8: Type of support provided to people in or from urban areas
Figure 1: Basic Livelihoods Framework
Figure 2: Positive Links Between Migration and Improving Livelihoods
1- Background
1.1. Introduction
This study
provides a better understanding of the dynamics of migration and rural
livelihood in Ethiopia
The specific
purpose of the assessment is to review the available studies and resource
materials on the dynamics of migration in Ethiopia
1.2. Scope and approaches to the study
Migration is understood as a spatial separation of one or more family
members from the location of their residence for different reasons over varying
periods of time, and in so doing are able to make new and different
contributions to their wellbeing (Ellis, 1998). In this paper, migration is used to describe all kinds of population
movements that include small or large-scale, single or circular, temporary or
permanent, voluntary or induced movement of people caused by social, economic
and/or political factors including seasonal employment, diversifying
livelihoods, political instability, ethnic strife, natural disasters, social distress,
marriage arrangements, or by the combination of one or more of these factors.
However, the scope of the paper does not directly deal with state organized or
‘planned’ movement of people such as the resettlement program in Ethiopia
We refer to
migration into the research sites as “in-migration” and mobility from the
research sites as “out-migration”. All
the people in the research sites who had moved at least once are regarded as
“migrants” in the study regardless of the duration of their stay in the
research sites at the time of the study. We also apply the term “migration
stream” to describe the flow of people from one area to another. Migrants are
characterized into four types based on the combination of places of origin and
destination: rural-rural, rural-urban, urban-urban, and urban-rural.
The paper
examines key issues affecting the dynamics of migration and the informal sector
in Ethiopia
A migration
research module was developed focusing on three levels to guide the qualitative
research process.
They are:
(1) Community
level – to establish current patterns and types of geographical mobility and
related inter-household linkages found in each of the sites and changes since
the mid-1990s.
(2) Household
level – to identify the roles, which different types of migrant play in
household economies.
(3) Individual
level – to learn the strategies, risks, costs and benefits of migration as
experienced by individuals involved in seasonal, long-term and distress
migration.
The qualitative
research fieldwork involved a total of five site teams four of which consisted
of pairs of one female and one male graduates of Addis Ababa University
Each of the
research in Dinki, Imdiber, Korodegaga, Turufe Kecheme and Yetmen comprised 2
male and 2 female focus groups, 4 key informant interview and 16 individual
cases. The individuals were selected through key informants among from the
relatively rich, middle and poor community members.
1.3. Analysis of recent migration
dynamics in Ethiopia
Migration
processes have been crucial to the formation of Ethiopia Ethiopia
Important
surveys such as the 1999 National Labor Force Survey, the 2000 Migration,
Gender and Health Survey and the national population census (1994) offer a
better picture about the dynamics of migration in the last decade in Ethiopia Ethiopia
UNDP (2003)
reported that about 17 percent of the total population of
The National Labour Force Survey (1999) indicated that 63 percent of the total migrants in the country were below the age of 30. The largest group (26 percent) of migrants fall in the age category of 15-19, followed by the age category of 20-24 (21 percent) and 25-29 years old (16 percent). This confirms that migration is heavily concentrated among younger people aged 15-30 years (Eshetu, 2005 quoting Connell, Roy et al. 1976).
A further survey (CSA, 2000) reveals that 70 percent of migrants are “illiterate”. The illiteracy rate is 58 percent for the male migrants and 80.5 percent for the female migrants. Only 0.9 percent of the migrants are educated above grade 12.
The rural-rural permanent stream and the rural-urban temporary stream are
disproportionately female, while the urban-urban permanent stream and the
rural-rural temporary stream were disproportionately male (CSA, 2000).
According to Bjeren (1985), the pattern of female migration from rural to urban
areas in Ethiopia is somewhat different from what is observed in
other parts of Africa . While male rural-urban migrants
are more dominant in other African countries due to the employment
opportunities available for men in urban areas, females in Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia , notably in Amhara and
Tigrayan societies, consider out-migration from their place of origin as an
immediate measure to escape from the distressful situation of marital
dissolution or marriage breakdowns (Hammond
However, there are regional variations in the rate and dynamics of
female migration. Eshetu (2005) indicated in his recent publication on female
migration to Addis Ababa that the proportion of female migrants from Oromia
accounts for only 23.9 percent, while the SNNPR contribution was 10.7 percent,
and those from Amhara region accounted for more than half (51.3 percent) of
female in-migrants, while migration from Tigray region was (10.1 perecent
). In terms of ethnic origin, the
majority of the female migrants to
The promulgation of ethnic-based federalism and the formation of
organized ethnic-centered regional administrations since 1991 have arguably
influenced the dynamics of inter-regional population migration specifically in
the first four or five years. For instance, the Migration, Gender and Health
Survey conducted jointly by the Addis Ababa University and Brown University
(2000) with a focus on the five most populated regional states; namely, Oromia,
Amhara, SNNPR and Tigray, indicated that permanent intra-regional migration has
become more frequent than permanent inter-regional migration with the exception
of temporary migrants moved to Addis Ababa.
The 1999 National Labour Force Survey of Ethiopia (CSA, 2000) also
showed that inter-regional migration was very limited particularly for
permanent migrants. However, there are no similar studies done that show the
inter and intra regional patterns of population movement before the
implementation of ethnic based federalism so that it is difficult to draw clear
conclusions. Factors such as lack of information about other regions and
preference to stay in a region where the migrants are confident of speaking the
language and sharing the culture could also contribute to the low level of
inter-regional migration pattern. The survey further revealed that while 90 and
78 percent of permanent migrants moved within Tigray and
Like its
predecessors, the EPRDF-led government does not have positive attitude towards
migration. The EPRDF strategy document states the objective of reducing
urban-bound migration as a consequence of increased utilization of labour
within the agricultural sector (EPRDF Agricultural Sector Strategy, 1995:12).
This is also clear from the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of Ethiopia (FDRE,
2002), which labels migration in its negative aspects and portrays it as a
cause of urban poverty, HIV-AIDS transmission and expansion of crime. The
strategy argues that rural-urban migration increases the influx of people from
rural areas, puts pressure on urban services and infrastructure, swells the
rate of unemployment as well as increases the level of crime and civil disorder
(FDRE, 2002).
On the other hand, the government argues that the
provision for private ownership of rural lands would force pesants to sale
their land out of distress and induces the urban centers to face influx of
landless and poor rural people. It insists that the current EPRDF policy regime
protects farmers from a possible loss of their prized and perhaps irretrievable
asset, which would occur if and when policies like full land ownership rights
(including the right to transfer it through sales) were conferred (Berhanu
& White 1999).
The household panel survey that was conducted by the Ethiopian Economics Association (2003), however, challenges the link between the rural land sales and migration. The survey disclosed that 93 percent of the survey respondents would not sell their land if they were given full ownership rights including the right to transfer through sales. Most of the respondents justified their intentions for not selling by claiming that they have no other means of survival (70 percent) while others claimed their land is not simply for sale (17 percent). Therefore, while it may be fair to have such a precautious government policy position regarding the negative aspects of migration, the presence of such development strategy could undermine the opportunities that might have been gained from exploring the positive outcomes of migration.
1.4. Theoretical Framework
This study, in
particular, builds on the discourse of the migration –livelihood framework. It
subscribes from (de Haan, 1999; Ellis, 1998; Kothari, 2003; Stark, 1991)
argument that migration is an essential element and most important methods of
diversifying rural livelihoods. As Tacoli (1998) stated, migration refers to a
social process, in which many poor households move between rural and urban
livelihood options as appropriate to their members’ needs through casual,
periodic or permanent migration experiences.
The Basic Livelihoods Approach (see figure 1 below), which focuses on the things people do and access resources in pursuit of a living is very much connected to migration since the later involves a human capital, which includes the mobility of labour together with a person’s experience, skills, education level, and health status. The multiple types of migration are also important in offering opportunities to reduce the vulnerability of households or in creating the capability to build a satisfactory living. Morever, migration is a conduit to offset or cope with risk factors that threaten the level of resources or the condunisve institutional and policy contexts that are relevant to individuals or households livelihood (Carney, 1998, Ellis, 2000).
In general, the
dynamics of migration can be better explained and studied in light of its
relationship with livelihoods diversification. This often depends on various
factors
including
development policies and priorities, social structures and networks,
seasonality and length of movement as well as labour markets.
|
Figure 1: Basic
Livelihoods Framework
Livelihood Outcomes
Transforming
Structures & Processes Livelihood Assets
§
More income §
Increased
well being §
Reduced Vulnerability §
Improved Food security §
More Sustainable use of NR
base
Vulnerability
Context §
Shocks §
Trends §
seasonality
Influence & Access L.Strategies/ Migration
P F
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source: (adopted from DFID, 1999; Scoones,
1998; Ellis, 2000; 2003)
In the following section, we present the major arguments and the various views regarding migration and its relationships with livelihood and poverty.
McDowell (1995)
argues that livelihoods and poverty clearly affect, and are affected, by
migration, but that there are no easy generalizations. He remarked that
migration experiences are often context specific. Some migrants can come from a
variety of districts not because they are necessarily the poorest but they can
develop a tradition of migration once certain patterns of migration exist. For
instance, the Gurage, the Gamo, the Tigraway and parts of Amhara migrations in Ethiopia
Connel et al.( 1977), Lipton (1980); de Haan
(1997) argue that it is not only poverty that causes migration but also that
inequality plays a significant role in inducing migration. Research on the
Indian Village Studies project in the 1970s revealed that the highest rates of
out-migration were experienced not by poor villages but by communities that had
problems of not only ‘objective’ inequality but also ‘subjective’ inequality
caused by people’s perceptions. The study disclosed that migrants came from a
variety of backgrounds and different groups that concentrate on specific
occupations and, hence, the migration streams were strongly segmented. They
belonged to both landless and land owners caste groups. In Ethiopia
Proponents of
the migration-development nexus model attempt to gauge government policy
priorities in the light of its position on migration (Tacoli, 1998; Kothari,
2003). There have been growing tendencies
of many African countries including successive governments of Ethiopia
It is common to
see such biases stated in relation to migration among poverty alleviation strategies
in African countries. A survey of PRSPs conducted by the Centre for Migration
Research at Sussex University
Supporters of the migration-development nexus model also argue that access to migration is structured and migration options are not open to all. Migration streams are highly segmented, and people’s networks and preceding migrations determine to a large extent who migrates, and from which areas. This also means that the gains from migration may be cumulative gains - those in a better position are likely to profit more - rather than migration balancing out regional population flows. For instance, Worku (1995) argues that the Gurage engagement in self-employed occupations such as petty trade, and settlement on a permanent basis in urban areas provided a strong source of attraction for further Gurage urban migration. Since the Gurage have strong traditions of mutual cooperation among members that, at the same time, promote individual creativity and individual appropriation of the results of such creativity, most Gurage migrants have easily adjusted themselves and have maintained control over trading niches and prosperity in urban settings.
Proponents also argue that forms of migration are strongly determined by social and family structures. For example, a nuclear family is more likely to lead to one-way permanent migration, while extended families sponsor single-male migration leaving the rest of the family behind. Similarly, restriction on female mobility outside the household also makes circular migration a more likely option.