Migration (especially internal migration) in most of Asia has been from rural to urban areas, fuelled by ‘push’ factors such as lack of job opportunities and the depressed condition of agriculture in rural areas and ‘pull’ factors such as higher wages and greater openings in industries and services in cities. Internal migration has thus become widespread, attributed largely to regional imbalances and facilitated in turn by improvements in transport and communication. A peculiar feature of migrants is that they constitute what can be termed as a “floating population”, as they alternate between living at their home and host location. While some commute on a daily basis, others stay for months together, remitting valuable income to their families. Being mostly unskilled and illiterate, migrants engage in temporary and unorganized employment arrangements. Though contributing to economic growth and earning marginally higher wages than at home, they have no formal access to channels of health and education, and remain vulnerable to exploitation at the workplace. Gender and ethnic stereotyping too are fallouts of such migration, with people being crowded in to low grade, low skilled activities.

Arguing that a new perspective is needed on addressing such migration, two recent ODI briefing papers* advocate developing social protection policy frameworks and capabilities of population (in rural areas) in general to enhance work opportunities when they migrate.  Public policy so far has not been geared to accommodate the poverty reduction potential of migration and its links to labour markets.
 
Attempts to address internal migration at the policy level have so far been of two types, differing according to context and priorities accorded, levels of urbanization, as also its feasibility:
Preventive – to contain the populace in rural areas and thereby reducing pressure on urban civic amenities. These include policies and schemes to create rural employment (wage and self employment) to curb distress migration, anti-slum drives and restricted entry into urban areas and such other measures.
Protective – not so pervasively pursued by all countries of the region - these include developing appropriate social security mechanisms, channels of remittances, allowing for a more welcoming urban environment with the possibility of permanent migration and having flexible social services which can be availed of by migrants on the move.

While the former responses are some what conventional, given the reality of movement of large numbers of population for livelihoods, the overall objective should be to allow for building of human capabilities of migrants, so that they become less dependent on low wage rural programmes and exercise their choice.  Experiences from elsewhere, especially from Latin America, China and parts of East Asia demonstrate the positive externalities and the need for developing protective and promotional measures to facilitate migration.  Policy debates on both the supply side as well as demand side factors of migration become necessary in this context.  Public policies have not yet fully integrated migration and migrant worker as an analytical determinant in terms of incorporating migrants into existing social protection schemes, devising new alternatives for migrant workers, conditions of work and role of state and non-state bodies.