Jonathan Rigg from the Geography Department of the National University of Singapore describes how the migration patters are changing, how mobile living has evolved, how the life course of migrants has changed, how all of this has affected farming, how the household is changing, what the differences between first and second-generation migrants are and how the urbane villager can be defined.

1. NEW MOBILITIES, NEW AGRARIAN
FORMS?
Migration and agrarian
transformations in Southeast
Jonathan
Rigg
Geography
Department
Na0onal
University
of
Singapore

2. Development
writ
small:
Two
villages,
77
households,
25
years
Ban
Non
Tae,
Northeast
Thailand:
1982

3. Ban
Non
Tae,
Northeast
Thailand:
1994

4. Ban
Non
Tae,
Northeast
Thailand:
2008

5. Three
surprises
here
!
1. Majority
of
households
dependent
on
non-­‐farm
work
&
individuals
increasingly
mobile
2. Despite
25
years
of
profound
change,
tracked
down
77
of
original
81
households
3. Large
majority
of
households
con0nued
to
own
and
farm
land

6. Household code
Trends
vs.
turbulence
Amount of
money earned

7. Mobile
living:
counHng
and
catching
the
new
normal

8. ‘FloaHng
populaHons’
in
Vietnam
and
China
!
Vietnam
• 12-­‐16
million,
or
13-­‐18%
of
the
country’s
total
popula0on
in
2010
(UNDP
2010:
5)
!
!
China
• 130
mio.
rural-­‐urban
migrant
workers
• largest
migra0on
stream
in
human
history;
including
rural-­‐rural
migrants
• total
number
on
the
move
at
the
end
of
2008:
225
mio.
!
!
Thailand,
Indonesia,
Philippines
• several
million
migrants
in
each
of
these
countries

9. ‘FloaHng
populaHons’
in
Vietnam
and
China
„For the most part, migration data remain patchy, non-comparable
and difficult to access.
… !
Despite our ability to establish these broad contours of
movement, what we know is dwarfed by what we don’t know.
Unfortunately, migration data remain weak. It is much easier for
policy makers to count the international movements of shoes and
cell-phones than of nurses and construction workers.“
(UNDP
2009,
28)

10. Known
unknowns:
Ban
Khokmayom:
Gauging
the
populaHon
of
a
village
in
Thailand
!10

11. Known
unknowns:
Ban
Khokmayom:
Gauging
the
populaHon
of
a
village
in
Thailand
Households
Uthai
district
census
bureau
(2005)
PopulaHon
-­‐
378
Tambon
data
(Kor
Chor
Chor
2
Khor
2003)
Tambon
health
staHon
(2005)
Survey
esHmate
(2005)
!11

12. Known
unknowns:
Ban
Khokmayom:
Gauging
the
populaHon
of
a
village
in
Thailand
Households
PopulaHon
Uthai
district
census
bureau
(2005)
-­‐
378
Tambon
data
(Kor
Chor
Chor
2
Khor
2003)
126
425
Tambon
health
staHon
(2005)
Survey
esHmate
(2005)
!12

13. Known
unknowns:
Ban
Khokmayom:
Gauging
the
populaHon
of
a
village
in
Thailand
Households
PopulaHon
Uthai
district
census
bureau
(2005)
-­‐
378
Tambon
data
(Kor
Chor
Chor
2
Khor
2003)
126
126
425
425
Tambon
health
staHon
(2005)
Survey
esHmate
(2005)
288
288
-­‐
1,257
1,257
3,000
!13

14. Known
unknowns:
Ban
Khokmayom:
Gauging
the
populaHon
of
a
village
in
Thailand
Households
PopulaHon
Uthai
district
census
bureau
(2005)
-­‐
378
Tambon
data
(Kor
Chor
Chor
2
Khor
2003)
126
425
Tambon
health
staHon
(2005)
Survey
esHmate
(2005)
288
-
1,257
3,000
!14

15. Ban Khokmayom

16. Ban
Khokmayom

17. Everyday
poliHcal
economies:
Ban
Khokmayom

18. Ban
Khokmayom

19. Land-­‐grabbing/global
enclosure
in
Laos
rubber
in
the
north

20. Mobility,
the
life
course
and
era-­‐
defining
change

21. Male
Female
100,0000
75,0000
Farming 1989
Non-farm work 1989
50,0000
25,0000
Rite of passage?
!
s
+
s
60
ye
ar
ar
s
50
-5
9
ye
ar
s
40
-4
9
ye
ar
s
30
-3
9
ye
ar
s
-2
9
ye
9
20
-1
10
ye
s
ar
+
s
60
ye
ar
ar
s
-5
9
ye
ar
s
50
40
-4
9
ye
ar
s
30
-3
9
ye
ar
ye
9
-2
20
10
-1
9
ye
ar
s
0,0000
Teasing
out
era,
life
course
and
generaHonal
changes
Gender,
genera0on
and
occupa0on
in
a
Northeastern
Thai
village

22. 100,0000
75,0000
Farming 1989
Non-farm work 1989
50,0000
25,0000
0,0000
Male
Female
100,0000
Or era-defining
change?
75,0000
50,0000
Farming 2000
Non-farm work 2000
25,0000
s
+
s
60
ye
ar
ar
s
-5
9
ye
ar
s
50
-4
9
ye
ar
s
40
30
-3
9
ye
ar
s
ye
ar
9
ye
-2
9
-1
10
60
20
a
ye rs
ar
s+
s
-5
9
ye
ar
s
50
40
-4
9
ye
ar
s
ye
ar
30
-3
9
ye
9
-2
20
10
-1
9
ye
ar
s
0,0000

23. Residency
classificaHon
of
interviewees
Hanoi,
Vietnam
(2010)
Residency
classificaHon
Number
of
interviewees
%
of
sample
KT1
6
20
Average
length
of
Hme
in
Hanoi
(years)
20
KT2
3
10
20
KT3
7
23
14
KT4
9
30
13
No
registraHon
2
7
9
Unknown
3
10
6
Total
30
100
14
Note:
KT3
and
KT4
are
temporary
registra0ons;
these
interviewees
do
not
have
urban
residency
or
ho
khau

24. MulH-­‐sited
households,
mulH-­‐sited
livelihoods

25. Household
footprints,
Northeast
Thailand

26. Income
sources
Ban
Dong
Daeng,
Northeast
Thailand:
1981
&
2002
(%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
40:60
agricultural/non-­‐agricultural
60:40
in
situ/ex
situ
!
Village-based,!
agricultural
!
Village-based, !
Non-village based,!
non-agricultural wages and remittances
Source: data extracted from Funahashi 2009: 3.

27. Income
sources
Ban
Dong
Daeng,
Northeast
Thailand:
1981
&
2002
(%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
40:60
agricultural/non-­‐agricultural
15:85
agricultural/non-­‐agricultural
60:40
in
situ/ex
situ
20:80
in
situ/ex
situ
!
Village-based,!
agricultural
!
Village-based, !
Non-village based,!
non-agricultural wages and remittances
Source: data extracted from Funahashi 2009: 3.

28. Sub-­‐livelihood
landholdings:
few
are
becoming
landless;
many
are
becoming
land
poor
45,0
40,0
% (n=77)
35,0
The
%
of
landless
households
in
25
years
has
risen
from
5%
to
15%
-­‐
85%
sHll
own
(some)
land
1982/83
2008
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
None
1-2
3-5
6-9
10-19 20-50
Categories of farmholding (rail)
>50

29. Villages
sustained
through
absence
(Thanh
Hoa,
Vietnam,
2010)
‘remieance
landscapes’
(McKay)

30. MigraHon
and
farming

31. MigraHon,
dissociaHon
and
the
geriatrificaHon
of
farming
Age (1982/1983)
Occupation categories
%
(N=275)
Mean!! Median
Farming
83,6
35,7
Casual wage
work
5,1
Government
employment
Age (2008)
%!
(N = 232)
Mean
Median
35,0
51,7
54,8
58
42,1
39
12,5
39,3
39
3,6
34,2
35
11,2
38,5
37
Private
employment
1,8
20,2
18
9,9
35,0
34
Entrepreneurs
0,7
37,5
37,5
9,1
39,9
36,5
Others
5,1
23,6
22
5,6
33,8
32
Ageing
farmers

32. GeriatrificaHon
of
farming
&
reproducHon
of
farm
household
(Average
age
of
household
heads
risen
from
47
to
60
years
old)

33. •
•
•
•
•
•
Mechanisa<on
Geriatrifica<on
of
farming
Disintensifica<on
Land
use
change
Cropping
changes
(transplant
–
broadcast
rice
culture)
Idle
land

34. In
Japan
• Average
size
of
farm
=
1.9
ha
• 85%
of
farmers
are
part-­‐<me
• Between
1960-­‐2004
number
of
farmers
dropped
from
12.2
million
to
2.2
million
• In
2009,
66,000
people
took
up
farming;
just
1,850
were
from
non-­‐farming
backgrounds
• The
average
age
of
farmers
exceeded
65
for
the
first
<me
in
2010
(65.8
years)
• In
many
areas,
just
10%
of
farmers
have
a
son/daughter
willing
to
take
over
the
farm

35. The
household
and
the
reproducHon
of
the
farm
household

36. Household
footprints,
Northeast
Thailand

37. Household
complexity,
Maharsarakham,
Thailand
Demographic
characterisHcs
1982/83
2008
Baseline
Re-­‐study
Household
head
or
relaHonships
to
household
head
(%)
Household
head
15.7
Spouse
of
HH
head
13.6
Child
of
household
head
54.2
Spouse
of
child
of
HH
head
3.9
Grandchild
of
HH
head
9.2
Spouse
of
grandchild
of
HH
head
0.2
Nephew/nieces
of
HH
head
0.2
Parent
of
HH
head/spouse
1.0
Sibling
of
HH
head/spouse
1.6
Other
extended
family
members
0.4

38. Household
complexity,
Maharsarakham,
Thailand
Demographic
characterisHcs
1982/83
2008
Baseline
Re-­‐study
Household
head
or
relaHonships
to
household
head
(%)
Household
head
15.7
21.3
Spouse
of
HH
head
13.6
13.0
Child
of
household
head
54.2
22.7
Spouse
of
child
of
HH
head
3.9
8.8
Grandchild
of
HH
head
9.2
21.3
Spouse
of
grandchild
of
HH
head
0.2
0.0
Nephew/nieces
of
HH
head
0.2
2.5
Parent
of
HH
head/spouse
1.0
1.4
Sibling
of
HH
head/spouse
1.6
2.2
Other
extended
family
members
0.4
6.9

39. Two
issues:
1. What
is
‘the
household’
(No
longer
a
co-­‐
residen<al
dwelling
unit)
2. How
will
the
farm
household
be
reproduced?

40. Mobility,
the
natal
village
and
the
middle
income
gap

41. Date
of
departure
of
first
and
second
generaHon
migrants,
Thailand
40
30
20
10
Source: survey, Nov-Dec 2012; n = 54 (1st generation
migrants), n = 97 (2nd generation migrants)
2
-1
10
9
-0
05
4
00
-0
9
-9
95
4
-9
90
9
-8
85
4
-8
80
74
-7
9
0
1st genereation migrants
2nd generation migrants

42. First
generaHon
migrants
in
Bangkok,
circa
1990

43. Migrants
in
Bangkok
circa
1990
Second
generaHon
migrants
in
Bangkok
circa
2005

44. Migrants
in
Bangkok
circa
1990
Second
generaHon
migrants
in
Bangkok
circa
2005
MigraHon
and
return:
the
migrants
of
the
1980s
departed
as
sojourning
farmers;
the
migrants
of
the
2000s
depart
as
school
leavers
with
only
a
tenuous
link
to
farming
and
the
land

45. EducaHonal
status
of
first
and
second
generaHon
migrants
on
departure
(Thailand)
70%
60%
50%
1st generation
2nd generation
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
er
te
ca
tifi
n
io
at
uc
Ed
lC
na
tio
ca
Vo
er
igh
H
ry
da
on
ec
y
ar
nd
co
Se
S
er
pp
U
r
we
Lo
y
ar
im
Pr
Source:
survey
Nov-­‐Dec
2012;
n=54
(first
genera<on
migrants)
and
n
=
97
(second
genera<on
migrants

46. MigraHon
signatures
Northeast
Thailand
1974-­‐2012
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Migrants
Returnees
Marriage Migrants
Total Migrants (current & returning)
Total
Expected Returnees
Permanent labour migrants

47. MigraHon
signatures
Northeast
Thailand
1974-­‐2012
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Migrants
Returnees
Marriage Migrants
Total Migrants (current & returning)
Total
Expected Returnees
Permanent labour migrants

48. MigraHon
signatures
Northeast
Thailand
1974-­‐2012
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Migrants
Returnees
Marriage Migrants
Total Migrants (current & returning)
Total
Expected Returnees
Permanent labour migrants

49. MigraHon
signatures
Northeast
Thailand
1974-­‐2012
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Migrants
Returnees
Marriage Migrants
Total Migrants (current & returning)
Total
Expected Returnees
Permanent labour migrants

50. MigraHon
signatures
Northeast
Thailand
1974-­‐2012
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
22
migrants
or
15%
of
total
were
permanent
out-­‐migrants
!
o 60%
of
first
generaHon
migrants
found
their
skills
of
liele
use
in
the
village
o 75%
of
second
generaHon
migrants
did
so
Migrants
Returnees
Marriage Migrants
Total Migrants (current & returning)
Total
Expected Returnees
Permanent labour migrants

51. Precarity
in
Thailand:
the
formalisaHon
of
employment,
1980-­‐2000
100
80
60
40
20
0
12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
00
20
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
19
Formal sector employment
Informal sector employment

52. Precarity
in
Thailand:
the
informalisaHon
of
the
formal
sector,
1980-­‐2012
100
80
60
40
20
0
12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
00
20
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
19
Formal sector employment
Informal sector employment

53. What
is
‘urban’?
The
urbane
villager

54. In
the
rural…
but
of
the
rural?
The
rural
as
socially
urban,
and
also
in
terms
of
ameni<es
and
iden<<es
–
being
urbane
in
the
rural

55. In
the
rural…
but
of
the
rural?
Thompson
(2007):
‘socially
urban’
Keyes
(2010):
‘rural
cosmopolitans’
Walker
(2012):
‘middle
income
peasants’

56. The
cosmopolitan
peasant...?
“Northeastern
families
today
have
become
increasingly
‘cosmopolitan’
because
they
are
linked
to
a
global
labor
force,
have
sophis<cated
understandings
of
Bangkok
society,
and
yet
s<ll
retain
long-­‐standing
resentment
for
being
looked
down
on
as
country
bumpkins”
(Keyes
2010:
2
).