Throughout the human history, migration facilitated and as well as has been induced by the process of human development in the form of emergence of civilizations, growth of technology and evolution of universal human values. From ice age to modern times, in more than one way, migration facilitated the mankind to become a global village. Migration affects the society, culture and the economy as key demographic agent.  It is an instrument of social integration, cultural diffusion and economic change. Whether migration takes place over long or short distance, whether it involves several millions or few hundreds, it ends in all cases transforming both the origin and the area of reception and also the modification of not only the way of life of migrants but also their metabolism of their mentality. But from ancient times to till today, migration is induced by economic factors. Ravenstein’s famous law of migration attributes economic factors as major cause of migration. The effects of migration stream can be classified as demographic, economic and socio-cultural. Of these effects, the economic effect of migration is more profound, which is true in present times, that people migrate for greater diversity of reasons like poverty, unemployment, lifestyle, education, warmer climate, or love and the primacy to improve income and economic development will remain the top priority which tries out to bring, modified and balanced relationship between the sending and receiving regions.

Conceptual Underpinnings between Migration and Development

In the last three decades, the development effect and potential consequences of migration has become an increasingly coherent and important field in economic and sociological research. In global contemporary perspective, any social scientist will undoubtedly agree that the phenomenon of migration and the challenge of development are continuously shaping the dynamics. How do these two macro processes interact with each other? This can be started by conceptualizing the phenomenon and then moving towards theorizing. There are both empirical and theoretical objections against the idea that migration leads to reducing disparities in development.

The relationship between migration and development is complex which varies with forms of migration namely whether it is seasonal/temporary migration or semi-permanent/permanent migration. Again, forms of migration are determined by socio-economic conditions of the people. Earlier studies (Keshri and Bhagat,2011;2013) show that poor and those with lower socio-economic background such as illiterates, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are more prone to seasonal and temporary migration. On the other side, permanent and semi-permanent migration is dominated by socio -economically better off people (Bhagat, 2010). Contrast between ‘solid’ migration and ‘slippery’ development is discussed by scholars. Migration is measurable and observable phenomenon, the global stock of migrants—people residing in other country stands at 232 million, 3.3% of the world’s population of 7.2 billion (UN 2013 as cited in King and Collyer 2016). ‘Migration and development are continuous dynamic processes; flows of migrants are often seen as the more relevant variable—either net flow or one way over a time span, such as a year or a decade (ibid).  The concept of net migration is intuitively attractive or repulsive in the gravitational logic of economic push and pull factors, however, as it is the product of different types of migration flows such as emigrants going out of a country, and those returning; immigrants coming into a country; and finally, transit migrants passing through. Moreover, migration can be seen as the product of individual decision-making event. Sen’s discussion in his work Development as Freedom (1999) reflects economic interpretations of development (measured in GDP as indicator) which is broadened to a wider vision of human development. This is presently well established (since 1990) in the Human Development Index (HDI) used in successive annual reports of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) by synthesizing, per capita GDP, quality of life variables like health, literacy, infant mortality, life expectancy, gender equality and human rights. Fischer et al. (1997: 94–96) draws correlation between migration and development. He explores the interconnections between the “net stock” of migration for each country and development which led him to arrive at the proposition higher is the migration. Overall, then, the more are the immigrants, higher is the GDP and conversely, more is the emigration, lower is the GDP (also cited in King and Collyer, op. cit. p. 169)

Akesson, Lisa (2011) in her work about returnees from a Central Atlantic Ocean Island by name Cape Verde, viz., “Making migrants responsible for development: Cape Verdian returnees and Northern migration policies in African Spectrum” shows the need of critically examining the contemporary celebration of migrants as “grass-roots developers”. She notes the disparities that exist between returnee’s experience and ideas behind the policy document.  Migrants are seen as the potential agents of development in native society. This assumption is analysed in this article. This article shows that structural conditions play a fundamental role on migrants’ capacity to contribute to development in one’s native country. She arrives at conclusion which expresses four aspects portraying the ground reality of how migrants are situated and considered.  They are as follows:

1.'In recent decades, there is a rising trend of migration by the poor and job seekers from the countries of the south moving towards northern countries. However, according to Lisa, they find it hard to acquire skills needed to participate in the work opportunities in those countries of destination. These “skills are useful to the complex development processes of these countries of destination”.

2.Lisa has also observed that among the migrants there is a high tendency to express their obligation towards their “native” country.

3.Her third observation is that the migrants must strive for decades to accumulate sufficiently for sending remittances to their homes and/or to return after a few decades.

4.The fourth important conclusion by Lisa is that the migrants from the southern nations or even others learn skills and techniques during their period of migration in developed nations, which they find hard to fix or adopt to their local situations or “realities” (Lisa 2011, p. 79). We now move on to studies which have dwelt upon highlighting how inadequate and inaccurate data on migration, due to inherent gaps, has led to certain problems. For example, Deshingkar, P & Akter, S (2009) in their UNDP Human Development Research Paper brought out that migration has altered livelihood strategies and economic growth in the Indian context. As a result, one can find them leading to inaccurate policy prescriptions as well as the needed political commitment required to help the migrants to improve their living and working conditions. The authors have provided evidence from their filed studies to uphold how circular migration has gained momentum as a dominant form of economic mobility for the poor, especially those from the lower castes and tribes. The term ‘development’ which is frequently used in migration studies has also been thoroughly investigated. Blackwell for example has contributed to two explanations about what development is: the first he calls as the “European Enlightenment” and goes on to define that it is the belief in the capacity of humanity to achieve a rational, stable and socio-economic order through development. He further argues that such a notion of development further implies that the developed countries tend to assist the “civilised” and the “enlightened” countries located in other locales of the world. The second explanation is the one following the collapse of colonial rule in the mid-20^th century and later merging into the Cold War period. Blackwell argues that it led to an ideological battle that occurred on the one hand within the capitalist order and on the other, the blend of socialist or communist ideas (held by Soviet group of nations, by Cuba and China, in the main).

Migration and Links with Development

What has been the impact of migration on the migrants and the two societies? We now discuss the outcome of a few seminal studies relating to Migration as it has impacted development and vice versa (impacted by or the result of Development). Studies (sociological as well as social scientific) on Migration have concentrated on several of its social, economic, and cultural dimensions. The model set up by Todaro is being applied in migrations studies from a longtime by scholars in the field. It came to be linked to development in interdisciplinary studies, breaking the divide where earlier, development specialists discussed little about migration and scholars who studied migration said little about development. As shown by studies by Abadan-Unat et al. 1977[1], this situation began to change in the late 70s when some significant efforts were made to bring interlinkages, at the local level and on a more global scale as captured by Skeldon 1997; Zelinsky 1971 in their studies. However, formal theorization of this relationship was either absent or, even if present, was not rigorously done. An attempt had been made by Michael (Michael J G 1969) in his study of migration in Egypt. He had hypothesised using the concepts of size of population, distance between the place of origin of migration and its destination, level of urbanization, education and so on. Availability of education locally never instigated emigration, according to his findings. At the same time the same (educational infrastructure) in a better form pushed the migrants seeking better benefits, causing in-migration there. This reminds us of the finding by Lewis (1954) long back establishing that migration is an equilibrating factor, which causes transfer of labour from the “labour surplus to labour deficit sector” thereby leading to equality between the two.

Migratory Process: Temporary, Processual and Assimilative

This section discusses certain concepts applied to the process of migration by studies undertaken in the 1970s, when the world-migration caused social scientific attention on the one hand, and on the other, concern by policy makers. Some studies referred to the “guest worker, immigrant and integrated’ migrant. As these titles or descriptions suggest, temporary workers to urban areas were referred to as ‘guest-workers’. Those who settled down for a relatively long period were the ‘immigrants’, while those went through the process of assimilation into the host culture and settled there permanently were the ‘integrated’ ones. The links with home country were highlighted by such studies. Here is the interesting predicament: remittances sent to their native homes (home country) were seen by sociologists as leading to positive change or development of the home nation, in the long run as the dependent families of these.migrants would benefit from the remittances to improve livelihood and standard of living. With an increase in health, education and income, along with the poor dependent families of migrants, the studies argued, even the general socio-economic level of the village or district also improved. However, a contrasting opinion was put forth by other studies (Piore, 1979) that the immigrants to the West and subsequently to the Eastern countries, about the prominent role of migrant labourers in greater growth in advanced industrial economy rather than in home country’s development. Classic treatise of Castles and Kosack (1973;1978), in their analysis of immigrant workers and class structure in Western Europe has concluded that migration is the Development Aid given to the rich countries by the poor through labour migration.

Factors in (and result of) Migration

If migration was viewed by the above studies as a well-established factor in modern societies, what then were their findings as far as the factors that promoted it? Taking the study by Mujumdar and Mujumdar (1978), we come to understand that there were several factors here: they have listed the opportunities in employment thrown open by the growing urban conglomeration as the major factor in attracting rural masses towards them. Interesting it is to note that, besides this factor, the marginalized sections from rural areas found the secular social environment in the city as a comfort zone to stay or work there, escaping the caste-racial atrocities and injustice in traditional societies like the villages. Besides these the migrant labourers also expected better livelihood means which acted as the chief economic attraction. These are the popular “push and pull factors” contributing for rural urban migration (Ghaffari and Singh 2004). The push factors were the result of internal circumstances (such as unemployment, drought, racial or caste-based oppression etc); the later were guided by the lure of external attractions or incentives. Their study identified the major push and pull factors responsible for rural out-migration, examining also the impact of various determinants on rural-urban migration. Besides the acceleration of industrialization, it also was lured by the educational facilities in these areas which are taken by the above study as significant variables in understanding rural-urban migration.

Hazari’s (2012) is a relatively recent study to focus upon the push and pull factors operative in the context of migration.  He has placed emphasis upon poverty as the chief push factor in rural urban migration of labourers. He has attributed such a situation to variations in or unequal regional development. He has insisted upon a sound system of improving the situation through targeted government policies and reforms.

A further explanation about the push factors is given by Shah (1998: 137) by adding that the scope for earning higher earnings in the more developed regions has been the motivating factor for rural urban migration. But the interesting part of this argument is that it is only by attracting (pulling) the skilled, educated and enterprising migrants from low income countries to developed regions that the latter (developed nations) have been able to rise much more in their land of destination, because of their skill levels and entrepreneurship qualities. It is their talent in these ways that has promoted their economic gains after migration. Accordingly, even Bhagat (2010) and Kundu (2007) have considered pull factors as selective and exclusionary. This is strengthened by their observation that speedy urbanization of Indian states is also accompanied by extreme levels of underdevelopment of these towns and cities with no proper infrastructure and basic facilities, that would make immigrants’ lives, safe and comfortable. These include improper access to drinking water by 25% of urban households in their premises, lack of bathroom, sanitation, and drainage facilities by 22% and 15% respectively. 11 % were deprived of toilet facility (Bhagat 2011).

Mitra (2010) argues that migrants should not be blamed for the state of urban policies and failure of the planning process. He further states that it is true that slums are the black mark on urban areas and they are found in large numbers. Bigger the city, greater is also the number of slums in it. But he corrects the general thinking that migrants alone are the inhabitants of these slums. In his view, even non-migrants tend to choose to stay there considering the availability of dwelling for cheaper rates and super imposed by the lack of housing or shortage of housing in urban areas due to large population influx. Thus, slums are an integral part of the cities according to his analysis (ibid).

Turning or placing emphasis upon governance, planning and administration of urban areas, a few studies have expressed concern about the silent attitude of urban planners and administrators to the very issue of migration and the rights of migrants to cities. These studies have shown that the Five-Year Plans (FYP) (now abandoned and renamed as Niti Ayog) have not placed enough or required importance on mitigating the problems of immigrants to cities. Although the 11^th FYP as well as the Draft Approach Paper to the 12^th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) recognized urban transition placing it in a positive framework, no reference has been made to the issue of migration, in these documents, let alone to the safeguarding of migrants’ right in the city. They have pointed out that urban development is a state subject in India, whereas various policies and programmes are being formulated by the centre. Some of the programmes of those years, like Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) and The Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), addressed the issue of urban poor and slum dweller. But they did not aim at removing the condition of migrants and the poor in the cities with the assumption that ‘migrants and poor are the synonymous categories’, which is not true. Such an assumption has obstructed mainstreaming the process of migration into the urban development strategies. Also, the issues like denial of political, economic, social, and cultural rights of migrants have not figured in government’s programmes and policy documents.

Attention to Problems of Migrants in the studies of 21^st century

The new millennium also brought with it a new wave of studies by social scientists and sociologists paying the much needed and long neglected attention towards the issue of problems of immigrants to urban areas. Migrants came to be looked upon as a “developmental resource” (Ninna Nyberg-Sorenson and Nicholas Van Hear 2002). They have attributed this new wave of attention towards migrants’ problems to their own importance in the development process in urban areas. In other words, the migrants' immense contribution towards the development of infrastructure and the economy of urban areas came to be duly recognised by these scholars. They prompted them to reassess the developmental role of immigrants. The huge amounts of remittances to their families by the migrants were the first factor to catch their and the government’s attention.

Secondly, the contribution of refugees was no less. Studies have taken due recognition of how their labour in the cities helps build cities. Both “conflict-ridden” and stable societies have undertaken reform measures for them.

The third, community is the migrant diaspora, which has been contributing to several inter country developmental processes. These include starting companies in the IT and BT sectors as done by the diasporic Indians in the USA and UK , Germany, France and Australia.  Studies on diasporic communities by sociologists like N Jayaram have highlighted many such factors. Cultural exchange, political participation and even rising to the levels of national leaders (like Sri Rishi Sunak, the PM of UK, and Smt. Kamala Hariss the Vice President of the USA both with ancestral roots in India) and in the field of education with several eminent scholars in the well-known universities of the above countries are further examples of the contribution of immigrants to nation building in their host countries.

Another recognition of the worth of migrants by studies is about how the immigrant labour conditions both the public and private sectors tend to depend on it as they possess a complex mix of skills.         

The fourth finding from studies in this regard is very interesting. It allays much of the negative or regretful thinking hitherto prevailed about migration, and asserts that all migration is not distress migration by the poor. Either the poor gain empowerment and entitlements by their sheer sweat and achieve a decent livelihood in the place where they have migrated to. Second or the other is they have also developed additional special skills that have placed them at a higher pedestal where their contribution is not just for wages; but they have converted their stay there in alien countries as one of an inevitable dependence by the host countries in their own socio-economic and political survival and development. The rising importance of people of Indian origin (PIOs) in the national politics of USA and UK, besides in Mauritius, Malaysia are standard examples here.  An increasing number of countries sending their poor and low and middle classes as migrants have come to recognize that migrant diasporas can advance national development from abroad and force those governments to endow the migrants with special rights, protection and recognition. Several studies (Jayaram 2004; Sahay 2009) have brought out the results that migrant diasporas are proving to be a development resource in the countries of destination; and establishing links - economic, political and cultural. They are also turning to be a force to reckon with, as it is true of the Indian diaspora in the US forming a strong numerical force too (4.9 million in the US in 2021). Besides Kamala Harris, several PIOs have risen to visible heights in several rungs, - political and business related. Examples are Antonio Costa (Portugal), Priti Patel (Britain), Anita Anand (Canada), Priyanka Radhakrishnan (New Zealand); CEOs like Sundar Pichai (Google), Laxman Narasimhan (Starbucks), Satya Nadella (Microsoft) and others. They have been working to build the nation’s visibility at global level. This is accompanied by rising remittances and upscaling foreign investment.

The studies have not ignored the aspect of how the diasporic Indians (or any migrant in a foreign land, for that matter) had to negotiate tactfully or strategically their case amidst ethnic diversities causing severe socio-economic competition in the lands of destination.Thus, we must notice that the issue of Migration and Development has come to be viewed with fresh lens and new perspectives in the 21^st century. New policy initiatives, changing migration contexts have promoted such a thinking (Van Hear and Sorenson 2002). The changes are grouped or categorized to fit into three stages, viz.,

1. Individual

2. Organizational and

3. Institutional

This is nothing but a shift in theoretical underpinnings keeping abreast of contemporary economic and political development. Hear and Sorenson have recognized changes at the level of individual and human behaviour. Then they have traced changes in migrants’ organizational behaviour in the places of destination. They (migrants) have formed collective groups, may be home town associations, constructed religious and cultural monuments, celebrating their festivals openly and trying to mainstream their language, ethnicity and indigenous economies in those lands (naming of streets in some south east countries and Mauritius, Indian language schools, dissemination of music and arts are examples). The last stage is institutional where several new initiatives have found their ways in politics and international policy as it has happened in the case of some of the African nations like Ethiopia.

The above authors have not ignored placing enormous importance upon, the role of remittances in returning a rising social status to the immigrants, both in the host and in the native country. A collection of papers on migration-development nexus were published highlighting the role of remittances in stimulating the above stated dual development – home and host country development (Van Hear and Sorensen 2002). Taylor (1999) has drawn attention to what he has labelled as “Bottom-Up Approach” or view of these concepts. His writings have drawn upon what he calls as the “new economics” of labour migration, which begins by taking stock of migration as a resulting process of household decision making. Then it goes to highlight the “temporary or circulating” emphasis upon the role of key workers who would migrate to work in better economies and send handsome remittances for the sustenance and growth of the family and its land and other resources, if any. Migration is thus, portrayed as a strategy to avert risks for the family’s survival and a protective umbrella against the unforeseen “market failures” (mostly related to agrarian produce) (Taylor 1999).

The concept of global social transformation

Now we proceed to discuss a popular concept coined by Castles (2009) known as the ‘Global Social Transformation”. In essence, his theorisation amounts to conclude that migration and development being the part of the same interactive process, are the two faces of the same coin (process). Calling this as Global Social Transformation, Castles (2010) has given scope for both accepting it as well as asking further some questions about (the stability of migration process. Nevertheless, Castles’ conceptualization kindled or stimulated further questions on migration and its relationship with development. That is by way of asking if development stimulates migration or migration encourages development? Or leads to underdevelopment? These questions have set up a scenario (King and Collyer 2016) leading to several hypotheses as to the stability of relationships or changes with historical and geographical settings. At the end of this paper, we are confronted with the question: Can--and should--aid prevent migration by promoting local development? (Famous anthropologist and expert in Diaspora studies, Prof. Steven Vertovec, 2010 p.187). The answer is in the negative. The scope and intensity of development vary considerably, but evidence suggests that production of more migration is most likely short-term outcomes. Instead, policies on international development cooperation should recognize migration of labour and human capital as a constructive force of economic integration on par with international commodity trade and capital flows within the liberalization and transnationalism policy regime.Keeping the above in view, Daniel Naujoks (2013) brings a holistic framework for migration and development encompasses three elements, viz.,

1. National charity of goals and aspects of development;

2. An understanding of concrete needs and strategies in the source; and

3. A thorough analysis of migration patterns, in order to assess how a certain migration may affect the source country’s development.

In their seminal work, King and Collyer have examined the various events that occur with particular intensity in the course of migration process, that is, at certain places, at certain times, and under certain conditions (op.cit 2016:172). These could be economic crisis, civil strife, and environmental stress. With these, scholars have raised four relevant questions, which are as follows:

1. Does underdevelopment cause outmigration? 

2. Does outmigration then lead to further underdevelopment?

3. Does outmigration lead to development of the source areas?

4. ‘If outmigration leads to development of the source areas, does this development lead to less or further outmigration (ibid).

In a bid to answer the above questions, we can recapitulate the views of De Hass who notes that “development is not only complex multi-dimensional concept, but also be assessed at different levels of analysis and has different meanings within different normative, cultural and historical contexts (2009, p)”. 5).It is also critiqued that the analysis of what development studies have long discussed as concepts, meanings, and levels of development, the same is neglected in the literature on migration and development. Instead, studies on migration and development are based on the modus operandi of select categories that are acknowledged as drivers of development, such as investment in and remittances to the native country. A further notable analytical framework is provided by Naujoks Daniel (2013) while framing his conceptual framework of migration and development. He has come up with a sector-wise application of data on migrants’ post migration behaviour. These relate to remittances, investment, consumption, innovation and entrepreneurship, business operations, trading, acquiring real estate, paying taxes, transferring social knowledge (social remittance), technology, skills, tourism, etc. One can clearly see the links