RABIUL ANSARY , AKHTAR HOSSAIN AND BIRBAL SAHA
Junior Research Fellow, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi , IndiaAsst. Teacher, Manikchak High Madrasah, Murshidabad, W.B. India
Associate Professor, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Purulia, W.B. India
Abstract:
Urbanization is a natural consequence of socio-economic change. As per 2001
census, out of a total of 220 urban centers in Rajasthan, 20 Class I cities account for 57%
of the urban population. Even within the class I cities, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Bikaner, Kota,
Ajmer and Udaipur account for 70% of the total population of class I cities. It is
important to note that Rajasthan has only 31% of the urban population living in urban
agglomerations as compared to other neighbouring states that means a smaller
percentage of urban population is participating in the overall growth being achieved in
urban areas. Even percentage of urban population is much lower than the national
average. The level of urbanization in Rajasthan was 22.88% in 1991 and in reached to
23.39 % in 2001 census. Rajasthan has witnessed the slow growth of industrial
development over time, with very less workforce engaged in the gainful secondary
activity (manufacturing sector), though it is a mineral-rich state. It was seen that
economy of Rajasthan experienced sectorial transformation over the time.
KEYWORDS:
industrial states, migration
INTRODUCTION:
compare to the western countries (developed countries). The process of urbanization in India was as well as
in Rajasthan noticed after the development and growth of industrial centers in latter part of nineteenth
centuries. Though The rapid process of urbanization in many developing countries has given rise to
concern regarding the costs of urbanization yet is a continuous process. Low level of urbanization shows
it's poor infrastructure and ill political policies which has not been implemented so far. In simple word the
term urbanization is defined as the process by which the people of rural area is started to concentrate in the
urban area due to lots of opportunities, or in search of jobs through the process of Migration. Therefore all
the urban centers are suffering from the over concentration of population with less development of
infrastructures. In other word we can say that Urbanization is the process of transformation of rural areas or
a society into urban areas due to industrialization and economic development. The processes of
urbanization and economic development are interrelated to each other (Breese, 1978). Though
Urbanization was persisted from ancient time of civilization it's pace was very slow. But it was boosted by
the industrial revolution in the 18th century, which radically changes the man - nature interaction and
application of more new technology and created more scope for diversified jobs. That ultimately leads to
the huge influxes migration towards urban centers. Therefore modernization was the new concept added in
this process and changes occurred in the attitude of man and new wave of population started from rural area
to the urban area, even from the small towns to the big towns.
OBJECTIVES:
by side but this may not be same everywhere. In recent trends in most of the developing countries where
history of process of urbanization is different than the develop country showed that Urbanization,
Industrialization and migration are not go side by side. Even in some extent it would be true. As we know
per capita income in Punjab is higher than the state like Tamilnadu, Gujarat but the level of urbanization and
migration is much higher in these states than Punjab. On the other hand if we see the sectorial contribution
of agriculture in SDP of Punjab is much higher than these states. The main objectives of this paper is as
following,
To see the trends and pattern of migration and urbanization and economic development in Rajasthan over
the time periods.
To find out the relationship between urbanization, migration and development of secondary sector
(manufacturing and industrial development) to shape the economy of urban centers of district of Rajasthan.
DATABASE:
keeping in view the specific objectives of the study. There are number of implications of hyper urbanization
on the environmental degradation and socio economic field such as the deforestation of natural vegetation,
landscape's physiological destruction, illegal land encroachment and shrinkage of productive agricultural
land etc and alter in the proportion of workers in different productive sectors in urban area . Thus, the
present study has been supported by the secondary sources of data generated through the extensive
literature survey.
Data has been derived from following sources:
I.Table B4, classification of workers by industrial categories by age and sex, economic table, B series,
RAJASTHAN.
III.Census of India 1991, and 2001 publication, New Delhi.
Estimate of District Domestic product of Rajasthan, 1999-2000 to 2006-2007, Published by
directorate of economics and statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
METHODOLOGY:
well as horizontal too. It needs greater understanding of the relation between the labor force structures and
urbanization. The process of urbanization leads to the physical expansion of area and convert the
surrounding hinterland due to it's population pressure. The urban growth may be due to the many reasons
and one may be due to the greater role of secondary and tertiary sectors development. But some urban area
is furnished as a consequence of traditional and other historical reason. But most of the traditional urban
center showed the slow pace of urbanization in compare to the industrially developed urban centers. the
level of urbanization (district wise) is calculated,
· % of urbanization = Total urban population/ total population* 100
Urban growth percentage of different years for the districts is calculated as,
Urban Growth rate =P2-P1/P2 * 100
Where,
P2= urban population of current years
P1= urban population of previous year
· For the calculation of the percentage of work force to the total work force in urban sectors, the nine
industrial classification of census was clubbed in to the three major sectors, as
Primary sector = agricultural laborer, cultivators, forestry, fishing.
Secondary sector =Manufacturing (HHI and Non-HHI), Construction, and mining and quarrying.
Tertiary sector = trade and communication, services, transport, electricity and water supply and others. I
also clubbed some districts which were bifurcated in recent time for better analysis of data.
· To see the trend and pattern of migration in the study area both in and out as well as net migration,
matrices was computed.
Urbanization has always been low in Rajasthan, characterized by agrarian society where its most
population is fed by primary sector hence it has a large share of main workers in primary activities.
CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK AND DATAANALYSIS:
modes of production, customs, folklore and culture. Since its formation on 1st April 1949 the state has
achieved tremendous progress in all areas of human development, especially improvements in literacy,
decline in poverty, low infant mortality and other social indicators. Rajasthan is one of those important
“BIMARU” states where most of the people live in rural area and accounts a bigger part of total state
population.
The urban work participation rate in terms of the proportion of workers to total population in
Rajasthan was 21.92 per cent in 1981. Rajasthan is one of the least urbanized states in India. The level of
urbanization in Rajasthan was 21.05 %, in 1981 followed by 22.88% in 1991 and in reached to 23 .39 % in
2001 census. The process of urbanization in Rajasthan and India is not today's phenomena. Comparing the
process of urbanization and industrialization in India in the first half of the twentieth century with that in
the European countries it was seen that more than a quarter of the European population deriving its
livelihood from manufacturing, barely one-tenth of India's population depended upon manufacturing for its
livelihood. The absence of a positive association between urbanization and industrialization in India
persisted even during 1951-61. In an analysis of Census of India it has been seen that there was a slower
tempo of urbanization in the decades of industrialization. Rajasthan has witnessed the slow growth of
industrial development through the ages with very less workforce engaged in the gainful secondary activity
(manufacturing sector), though it is a mineral-rich state. Most of the population depends upon the primary
sector for their sustenance
As
is evidenced, in 1981 census of Rajasthan
the main workers distribution among the different sectors of economy as
the primary, secondary and tertiary were as 20.11 per cent, 27.24 per cent and
52.65 per cent, respectively of the total urban main workers in 1981, thus
showing an overall predominance of the tertiary sector. While in term of
urbanization it was only 21.05% in 1981 census of Rajasthan. But the
contribution of the secondary sector in main work force is much higher than the
level of urbanization in the state which indicates no incident of hyper
urbanization in the state in 1981. It was also noticed that in term of
contribution of manufacturing sector is higher than the level of urbanization.
The overwhelming concentration of 52.65 per cent workers in tertiary sector may
help in measuring the index of progress and all-round development.
Manufacturing, public administration and trade account for the bulk of the
total income of the state. Agricultural sector is not very important due to the
fast pace of urbanization process which is progressively reducing the share of
cultivated land. Most prominent occupation is administrative services, followed
by industrial employment and self-employment in trade and commerce. Thus
economically, Rajasthan performs three functions viz., central administration
of the country; servicing, commerce and trade. Similar way the scenario was
changed as the contribution of primary sector declined to 14.05% in 1991 census
as compare to the previous census while increasing trend was noticed in the
secondary and tertiary sectors as it rose to 29.91% and 56.03% in 1991
respectively. It shows the transformation of the economy of Rajasthan from
primary and secondary to tertiary sector, and less dependence on agriculture
sectors. It was noticed here that the level of urbanization of the sate
increased to 22.88% in 1991 census.
In
the census year there was radical changed occurred as the contribution of
primary sector showed steady declined. While the level of urbanization
increased to 23.39% in 2001. It was also noticed that rate of growth of
urbanization is much slower than the rate of decline of percentage of primary
sector to the economy of urban area of the state. This indicates the physical
expansion and encroachment of agricultural land which is less productive in
term of economic activities. In term of manufacturing sector there was slight
increased in the proportion as compare to the previous year. While in term of
level of urbanization it shows higher rate than the manufacturing sector. If we
see the growth of secondary sector it is much higher than the growth of
urbanization and tertiary sector. The growth of secondary sectors is due to the
engagement of more population in the household industries in the urban area,
and construction. While slow rate in the case of manufacturing is due to the
dispersion of environmental pollution industries from the main urban centers to
the periphery and diversion of job opportunities and wave to the tertiary
sector from secondary sector
Rajasthan has
witnessed the slow growth of industrial development through the ages with very
less workforce engaged in the gainful secondary activity (manufacturing
sector), and tertiary activity though it is a mineral-rich state. But the
contribution of these two sectors in District domestic products is much more
than the primary sectors, where majority of the work force are engaged. Most of
the people depend on the primary sector for their sustenance. The total main
working population of Rajasthan can be divided into three broad sectors of
economy, viz: (1) primary; (2) secondary; and (3) tertiary. Under primary
sector come activities related to direct produce from the earth, e.g.
agricultural produce, animal husbandry and mining and quarrying.
In
the secondary sector manufacturing, processing, repairs and servicing at
household and other than household industry and construction have been
included. The tertiary sector covers trade and commerce; transport, storage and
communications; and other services. Urbanization is a process which leads to
the transformation of any society from agriculturally dependent to service
sectors. It was seen that most of the districts of Rajasthan showed the rapid increased
in the level of urbanization after 1991 to 2001 census. Even highest percentage
of urban population lives in Ajmer.it is historically most important district
in term of tourist place and most of the administrative offices are located
here. But after the adaptation of LPG by the Indian government the whole
scenario was changed and Jaipur emerged as the most important city of
Rajasthan. In recent time most of the MNCs are preferred to develop near or
surrounding the pink city.
DISTRICT WISE ANALYSIS:
Rajasthan
is one of the least urbanized states in India. The level of urbanization in
Rajasthan was 21.05 %, in 1981 followed by 22.88% in 1991 and in reached to 23
.39 % in 2001 census. The process of urbanization in Rajasthan and India is not
today’s phenomena. The absence of a positive association between urbanization
and industrialization in India persisted even during 1951-61.
As
a whole the urbanization in Rajasthan is very slow but by districts it varies.
It varies with the mineral endowment, historical reasons and the set up of
industries in the areas. In Rajasthan
Nagaur (42.80%) is the highest urbanized districts in 1981 census, followed by
the Bikaner, Jaipur, and Barmer. The least urbanized districts are Banswara,
followed by Dungarpur, Ajmer and Pali. While it was noticed that in term of
primary sectors contribution from1981 to2001 that it was continuously declined
from 1981 to 2001, which shows the indication of the transformation of the
economy.
While
in term of decline of primary sector trend Kota is the district where there is
significant declined in the proportion of this sector and dependent up on other
sector. While in the case of Alwar and Pale district the scenario is different
which is clearly seen from the diagrams. Similar way the level of urbanization
of this state is also low means even there is much development of secondary and
tertiary sector that does not means it will leads to the high level of
urbanization.
So
the population concentration stared increasing in the districts for both the
purposes of job opportunity and educational facilities from the other districts
of the state. It was seen from the diagram that higher rate of growth rate in
urban population was noticed in the Kota and Jodhpur district. It is may be due
to the separation of division of kota in to two districts in 2001 over 1991. On
the other hand district like Jaisalmer where existing environment are not
suitable for the human habitation due to harsh climate experienced negative
urban growth rate in 2001 over 1991 census. But the overall picture indicates
the increasing trends in the level of urbanization over the time. It was often
said that urbanization and migration go side by side. In most of the developed
counties where industrial development leads to the urbanization and industrial
demand of labors leads to large scale influx of rural population from the
surrounding area in search of jobs in the urban centers. but in case of
Rajasthan the case is different where there is a kind of imbalance among urbanization,
migration and development of secondary and tertiary sectors. As it was seen in
2001 Rajasthan experienced negative net migration over 1991 census. It was said
that lack of job opportunity and other factors leads to the large scale out
migration from the state to the other states, particularly boarder districts of
UP, Gujarat, Punjab and especially in capital city Delhi. Even international
migration from the state is the major cause for negative net migration rate
over the time. At the district it portrays really interesting picture in case
of Jaisalmen where net migration rate over the time period 1991 to 2001 is
positive but in case of urbanization it had experienced negative growth rate.
The cause probably may be the return back of migrated workers from the other
districts of states and less people are prefer to migration to the other
districts.
Rajasthan has
the eighth largest economy with a Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) of over US$
11.5 billion.
Fig: 1
the
last ten years from 1992-93 to 2002- 2003, the state of Rajasthan underwent
growth at a Compounded Average Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6% increasing from US$ 6.4
billion to US$ 11.5 billion. The main economy of Rajasthan is agrarian based.
Agriculture is the leading economy of the state accounting for 22.5 per cent.
The total cultivated area of the state encompasses about 20 million hectares
and out of this only 20% of the land is irrigated. The agricultural sector is
the predominant source of employment in Rajasthan. Employment in overall agriculture
is declining, although growth in non-agricultural employment is not fast enough
to compensate for this decline. Under-employment is widespread especially in
the rural agriculture sector and very significantly in the urban informal
sector. The industrial base of the labor force is quite thin. The districts
where the primary sector continues to be predominant are Barmer, Jalore,
Chittorgarh, Dungarpur, Banswara, Dholpur and Jhalawar. Further, in Churu,
Banswara, Jhalawar, Chittorgarh, Barmer, Dholpur, and Bikaner the dependence of
rural workers on the agriculture sector is very high (above 75 percent). It is
a matter of concern that most of these districts are not agriculturally
prosperous. Also, while some of them may be around the state average in overall
parameters of income and poverty, their agriculture-dependent population works
in a low productivity, low technology equilibrium. The share of labour force in
industries (both household and non-household) is just 14.3 percent, which
indicates industrial backwardness and over the period the share was declined in
2001 census. The proportion of casual labour has increased, especially in rural
areas. The massive increase in the construction sector is largely a result of
the spillover of unskilled workers from relatively less remunerative work in
agriculture. The level of employment varies in the state.
Fig: 2
While it is
relatively high in Ganganagar, Udaipur, Dungarpur, Dholpur and Chittorgarh have
the largest incidence of under-employment. Thus we can infer from the table
that agriculture is the main stay of Rajasthan’s economy in term of providing
employment to the large masses. Most of the western districts are dependent on
agriculture for their livelihood in 1991 census. It was seen that in 1991 Kota
was the only district where less than 65 % people are engaged in agricultural
sectors.
But
the scenario was changed in 2001 census. It was observed that economic
transformation took place in Rajasthan and the share of agricultural sectors
decline over the time. In
2001, as the census data indicates, about 39 percent of the state’s population
(1.71 crores of people) was employed in one form or another, with 1.39 crores
of people employed as main workers and 31.9lakhs as marginal workers. The
workforce participation rate (WPR) was 49 percent and 27 percent respectively
amongst men and women, 42 percent in rural areas and 28 percent in urban areas.
Even agriculture sectors accounts lion portion for the main workers but
tertiary sectors came as the dominate sector for the employment over secondary
sectors in the state. The districts like Jaipur, Pali, Jhalor, and Kota showed
tremendous decline employment opportunities in Agriculture sectors. On the
other hand if we see the development of tertiary sectors over the secondary
sectors at the districts level it is the districts like Kota, Jalor, C.garh, Pali,
Tonk, Siker, Bikaner, and Ganganagar showed meaning full growth. But at the
same time share in secondary sector was declined over the time. It is may be
due to the development of services sectors after the LPGs.
One
can say that Tourism and infrastructural services are key areas for
such changes in the study area. Other than conventional means, utilise
non-resident Rajasthan is for information dissemination regarding heritage
tourism. Provide education facilities (through development of centres of
excellence with investment from tourism companies) to tour operators and
guides. Introduce new curriculum at the graduate level and build training
institutes (e.g. for para-medical personnel) for service-oriented jobs. Develop
a facilitation centre (for information dissemination and other related services
for temporary mobility of labour) as export of manpower (e.g. for construction
services) is a key opportunity. The sectoral composition of NSDP in
Rajasthan skewed toward the primary sectors. The share of agriculture and
allied activities in the NSDP was nearly 50 percent in the early 1980s, but it
declined substantially in the drought years of 1986 and 1987/88.
Fig: 3
It
rose subsequently, and varied from 40 to 47 percent in the 1990s and further
declined was noticed in 2001-2002. The sect oral composition of NSDP in
Rajasthan, which is shifting towards the services sector in terms of growth
prospects, contrasts with the pattern of employment where agriculture still
plays the dominant role.
Fig: 4
This
indicates that economic growth in the state needs to be refocused towards
creating greater employment opportunities and increase participation of women.
As it is clearly visible from the above diagram that the contribution of
tertiary sectors to the SNDP and DNDP has raised considerably in 2001-2002. The
most interesting thing is the emergence of Jaipur’s economy where contribution
of Tertiary sector to the district net domestic products is much higher than
the other districts. At the same time Rajasamad experienced huge growth in
secondary sectors. It is may be due to the out come of new industries in the
district. While in case of Jaipur it is due to outcome of new IT sectors, MNCs
and employment opportunities in the white collar jobs. On the other hand
districts like Baran, Bikenar, Jaisalmer Jhalawar, Jhalore agriculture sector
overcome the Secondary and tertiary sectors in term of DNDPs.
Fig: 5
It was said in most
of the literature that migration plays a dominant role in shaping the economy
of any countries or regions. In case of Kerala (India) where remittances play a
crucial role for shaping their economy and their economy largely dependent on
remittances transferred by the migrated people from the gulf counties. It
noticed that at least one person from every family migrated in gulf countries
for the job purposes. Thus role of international migration we cannot denay. But
the role of internal migration in case economic development among states is
also important. In case of Rajasthan to find out the relation between migration
and economic development it was seen that migration as the single factors is
not play a dominate role for shaping the economy.
Along
with others social and economic factors migration may play significant role for
economic transformation. Over all in 1991 census data showed less significance
of migration as the determining factors for economic development of Rajasthan
(the value of R2 is very low.). But some districts in
Rajasthan where influxes of tourist play a dominant role for economic
development here. That indicates the contribution of service sectors for the
DNDP of the districts. But here we see the indirect effect of tourist applying
the mobility concept of migration. The rate of international migration from
Rajasthan is very less. At the same time internal mobility is very high to the
surrounding states. As in our own experienced in Pushkar In Ajmer district we
went for socio-economic trip found the pathetic situation of the farmers who
informed the crisis of water availability for agriculture in 2010. But the
situation was not as worse as before few years. So the farmers are forced to
leaves their agricultural lands or left as fellow land and youth of their
houses migrated either Gujarat or Delhi for getting jobs.
CONCLUSION:
Urbanization is
a determinant as well as the indicator of the socio-economic change of a region
or country. It is a natural change with certain activities performing better
and certain sector loosing with marching ahead the urbanization. Overall if we
see Rajasthan experiences a hyper urbanization as it sees more urbanization
with respect to the industrial development or the contribution of the secondary
sector in the economy is not so good. As a whole the economy of Rajasthan is
moving towards tertiary (service) based though the urbanization is very slow.
It is not a proper development or we can say absurd development. The overall
manufacturing sector doesn’t provide platform for the urban growth but other
factors works here. Finally it can be said that it would be rash to place the
entire blame for discouraging performances on hyperurbanisation alone and avoid
the role of other sectors which shape the urban economy of any region or
states. Analysis of trends in the composition of Net State Domestic Product
(NSDP) and of the employment profile of the State indicates the need to
diversify employment structure. There is an urgent need to redress the gap
between the stagnant agricultural sector, which continues to employ the largest
proportion of workforce, and the more dynamic services sector, which accounts
for only a small percentage of employment. Present trends could lead to a
situation of “jobless growth”. The low share (7.5 percent) of industry in
employment means that industrial backwardness persists. There is an increase in
the share of agricultural labor in total agricultural employment due to lack of
other income opportunities for cultivators. We may also conclude that there is
not one to one relation mean to say that migration, urbanization and economic
development are interlinked.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Black, D. and Henderson, J.
V.(1999) "Theory of Urban Growth." Journal of Political Economy
107:252-84.
2.
Bryan R. Roberts (1989) “Urbanization,
Migration, and Development” Sociological Forum, Vol. 4, No. 4, Special
Issue: Comparative National Development: Theory and Facts for the 1990s (Dec.,
1989), pp. 665-691.
3.
Ellison, G., and E. Glaeser. 1997. "Geographic Concentration in US
Manufacturing Industries: A Dart board
Approach."Journal of Political Economy 105:889-927.
4.
Everett S. Lee (1966) “A
Theory of Migration” Demography, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1966), pp. 47-57,
population association of America.
5.
Henderson. V (2002) “Urbanization
in Developing Countries” The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 17, No.
1, pp. 89-112.
6.
Ledent. J (1982) “Rural-Urban
Migration, Urbanization, and Economic Development” Economic Development
and Cultural Change, Vol. 30, No. 3, Third World Migration and Urbanization: A
Symposium (Apr., 1982), pp. 507-538.
7.
Richardson, H. (1987). "The
Costs of Urbanization: A Four Country
Comparison." Economic
Development and Cultural Change 33:561-80.
8.
Sarangi. N (2007), “Migration,
Employment Status and Poverty: An Analysis across Urban Centres”,
Economic and Political Weekly, Jan 27, 2007.
9.
Williamson, J. 1965. "Regional Inequality and the Process of
National Development."
Economic Development and Cultural Change 13:3-45.
10.
…….. (1999-2000 to
2006-2007) “Estimate of District Domestic product of Rajasthan”, Published
by directorate of economics and statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
To View A Blog http://www.isrj.net/UploadedData/1895.pdf
