A Rough business Report: Rural to Urban Migration of People to Dhaka City

7/29/2019 A Rough business Report: Rural to Urban Migration of People to Dhaka City

1/32

Research Report

On

Rural to Urban Migration of

People to Dhaka City


2/32

AcknowledgementThe study on the rural to urban migration is one of our assignments given as integral part of

study. The main aim of this study is to identify cause & effect of rural to urban migration in

Dhaka city. This study is carried out all over the world. I could hardly finish the job unless there

were some other fellows to assist me in formulating collecting data, processing of data,

tabulation and compilation of data. There were some other scholars assisted by editing the report.

I should thank all of them.

I am thankful to my friends who have assisted me in designing the research and formulation of

questionnaire, data collection and processing.

Page | 2


3/32

Finally I express my heart-felt thanks to my teacher for giving me such a good topics to carry out

study. It has helped me a lot to acquire knowledge in rural to urban migration in Dhaka city. I

hope this report shall of use to many researchers in future. We are very thanking full to our

Course Facilitator, Shaker Ahmed for Increasing to this research report. We are very happy that

our group members worked very hard to make this report.

Summary

This paper explores the factors contributing to the rural to urban migration process in

Bangladesh. 197 randomly selected migrants and their families were interviewed at both

destination and source locations using closed and open-ended questionnaires. The resulting data

provided descriptive and analytical statistics. Data analysis reveals that the flow of migration to

the major cities in Bangladesh is the result of rural - urban dichotomies in income, employment

opportunity and absorptive capacity. A significantly higher percentage of migrants live in slums

as compared to other places. Regression analysis shows that migration is influenced by both

push and pull factors, such as the search for work, landlessness, extreme poverty, loss of

income,, easy access to informal sectors in cities, and joining families or relatives. A factor

analysis showed similar determinants. Reducing disparities between rural and urban areas should

receive urgent attention to stabilize the migration process in Bangladesh.

Page | 3


4/32

Table of contents Page Number

Title of the topic 1

Acknowledgement..3

Letter of the transmittal..2

Analysis (findings)5

Recommendations19

Conclusion20

Page | 4


5/32

References20

Appendices...

1. Introduction

Migration between urban and rural areas is seen as a central element in the livelihoods of many

households in Bangladesh. Much of the literature focuses on movements of people as a result of

environmental, economic or demographic crises. The rapid growth of rural-urban migration has

been a common feature of developing countries. In China, for instance, Wang et al identified the

magnitude of the floating population in cities caused by rural-urban migration and the

consequences of the tidal wave of migrants. In Bangladesh, too, migration flows to major citieshave alarmed observers. Rural-urban migration flows increased dramatically during the famine

of 1974 (BBS, 1996). As a consequence, the share of rural migrants as a share of the urban

population rose to 8.9% from 5.2% in 1961. A distinct selectivity with respect to age, sex, caste,

marital status, education and occupation is evident in rural - urban migration. Of 491 urban

locations in Bangladesh, only the four largest cities (Dhaka, Rajshahi, Chittagong and Khulna)

Page | 5


6/32

are officially recognized as metropolitan cities. About 22% of the 129 million people in

Bangladesh live in urban areas. The level of urbanization in Bangladesh is comparatively low,

but the pace is high, ranging from 7 to 11% in the last five decades (Islam 1996a). During the

decade from 1951, the total urban population rose from 1.8 to 2.6 million. The factors

responsible for this form of growth were the large scale migration of Muslims from India after

Partition in 1947, and the development of new centers of trade, commerce, industry and

administration in the region after the formation of Bangladesh in 1971.

Migration is radically changing the socio-economic, demographic and development profile of

developing countries, with far-reaching implications for agriculture-based economies. According

to United Nations estimates, 50% of the projected increase in the world's urban population will

come from rural-to-urban migration so that by 2025, over 1.1 billion urban people in LessDeveloped Regions will be rural migrants (Guerny, 1995). Clearly, the socio-economic and

demographic ramifications of this massive rural exodus will have a marked impact not only on

urban but also on rural areas alike. Long-term male migration from rural to urban area may

fundamentally change the gender division of labor in farm households. Men may not be available

for ploughing and planting which are both time and energy-intensive. For rural children, this

translates into a marked increase in agricultural work. In Bangladesh, about 4.2 million child

workers are engaged in the agriculture sector (BBS, 2003). Similarly a recent survey indicates

that about 56% child workers are engaged in agricultural sector (The Daily Star, 2003).

Advantage of migration:

Migration is one of the major contributors to urban growth in Bangladesh. In the past century, the

urban population grew by about 35 million, an increase of more than thirty-fold. In contrast, the

population of rural areas increased four-fold (from 28.2 million to 103.1 million). Rural areas are

still home to most of the total population. Migration accounts for about two-thirds of the urban

growth seen in Bangladesh since independence. The proportion of people living in urban areas

rose from 6.2% in 1965 to 9.9% in 1975 and reached 25% in 2000 (UN, 2002). The rate of

urbanization increased sharply after the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistani government,

mainly due to the prevailing problems of a war-torn economy including a high rate of inflation,

almost zero-level productivity and domestic savings and deteriorating law and order in rural

Page | 6


7/32

areas. Economic and commercial activities began to spread to urban centres5. To reveal

migration patterns and trends we used sex ratios as indicators of emigration or immigration.

Cities with a high sex ratio are generally considered to be receivers of migrants and those with

lower ratios as sending areas6. A closer examination of the BBS data from 19741991 reveals

the following trends.

1. There is a positive correlation between higher sex ratio and higher urban growth

for all metropolitan cities. A high sex ratio suggests that more men than women migrated to these

cities. The migration was likely to be temporary, as the men seldom migrated with their families.

Over time, however, the sex ratio became more balanced because women began to migrate to

urban areas independently, largely as a result of the boom in the mid-1980s in the ready-made

garment (RMG) industry7. Chittagong had the highest sex ratio, of 155, in 1974, which declined

to 119 in 2001. Sex ratios for Dhaka, Khulna and Rajshahi also fell to 123, 112 and 110

respectively in 2001.

2. Among cities with populations of 100,000 or more, a higher sex-ratio is found in

those that experienced higher urban growth e.g. Sylhet, Narsingdhi, Naogaon, Bogra, Rangpur

and Jessore, etc. and have better industrial development and trading opportunities e,g. Narsingdhi

and Sylhet. Cities that experienced slow or lower urban growth rates e.g. Saidpur, Jamalpur,

Pabna and Tangail are marked by a comparatively lower sex ratio. However, there are some

exceptions, such as Barisal, which has a high sex ratio, and Nawabganj, which has a low sex

ratio. Note that the overall sex ratio might not reflect the actual situation if not disaggregated by

age group.8 3. There is a close relationship between rapid urbanisation and significant

demographic change. For example, Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, Narsingdhi, Sylhet, Comilla and

Jessore, which urbanised rapidly, also show high sex ratios and the highest proportion of

population of an active age. These cities benefited either from industrial and/or transborder

informal trade, or high agricultural growth.

Disadvantage of migration:

The main problems that migrants face concern lack of low cost housing, physical insecurity,

skewed distribution of the delivery of basic services and subsequent health problems. More than

Page | 7


8/32

half (53%) of poor migrants live in private slums and 44% squat on public land with about 14

square meters space for a family of average five members or 2.7 square metres per capita space,

which increases almost six times for a non-slum resident. Although poor migrants eventually

improve their living spaces, for example replacing thatched roofs with corrugated iron sheets for

better protection from cold and rain, living in such conditions give rise to many health problems,

particularly given the combination of mud floors, flimsy walls, heat and humidity and torrential

monsoon rains .Worse still are the health and environmental risks associated with poor access to

water and sanitation services, which determine health and environmental safety. Nearly three-

quarters of slum dwellers depend largely on outside water taps, which are shared by 5-6 families.

To fetch water for drinking and cooking, a female slum resident must travel an average distance

of 69 m daily, adding to her workload and affecting her health and productivity. Nearly 90% of

the slum dwellers use hanging and other types of non-sanitary toilets in Dhaka city, whereas 90%

of non-slum residents have modern toilets and 25% of households in small and medium towns

have septic tanks. Morbidity rate is estimated at 52% for slum dwellers and 42% for a female

worker in a garment factory . Around one-fifth of female garment factory workers also suffer

from sexually transmitted diseases .Women are the major victims of deteriorating law and order

and the resulting human rights violations. Lack of safe, affordable transportation, inexpensive

one-stop treatment and medical facilities increases womens vulnerability. Institutions providing

childcare, health care and boarding facilities at affordable prices are rare even in the capital city,

and much less so in other cities and towns. Policy makers and planners need to address the dearth

of affordable services and to strengthen institutions that will support their emergence and

maintenance. Hossain, Khan and Seeley (2003) also found that problems of accommodation,

sickness and disease, robbery and physical harassment loom large for seasonal migrants at

destination. The experience of one migrant Worse still is the constant threat of eviction. Squatter

settlements are formed with the help of muscle power, strong social networks built on kinship

ties and districtbased affinities and with the patronage of political leaders. Government

authorities and vested interests have made several attempts to evict squatters from most of the

large settlements in Dhaka. However, forced eviction is contrary to the 1996 Habitat Agenda, to

which the government is a signatory, and violates Article 11 of the Constitution, which

guarantees fundamental human rights and freedoms to all citizens.11 The recent attempted

eviction by government authorities of squatters in Agargoan and other settlements surpassed all

Page | 8


9/32

previous records of violence. Here the mastaans (muscle men) raped women and men were

mercilessly beaten by police; squatters had no alternative but to leave. On top of the trauma of

violent treatment, such eviction creates serious job displacement problems, particularly for

women, and increases their insecurity. In their rich documentation of case studies, Hossain, Khan

and Seeley (2003) showed how poor migrants are treated as outsiders, deprived from

entitlements and denied justice at the place of destination.

Causes of Rural-Urban Migration

Considerable literatures exist on the subject of determinants or causes of rural to urban

migration. A Bangladeshi scholar working at an American University has, in a recent paper,

classified the models of causes of migration into two groups (i) one which isolates migration as a

domestic phenomenon and (ii) the other which places causes of migration within an international

politico-economic framework. Of the domestic models the most popular is the Push-Pull model

pioneered by Everett S. Lee (1996). Migration is the combined effect of both push and pull

factors and it is often difficult to separate the role of the two. Within the Push-Pull model, push

factors (at rural end) may be identified for Bangladesh as:

1) Population pressure, adverse person-land ratio, landlessness and poverty.

2) Frequent and severe natural disasters (particularly river bank erosion).

3) Law and order situation.

4) Lack of social and cultural opportunities (applicable for rural rich).

The pull factors are operative at the urban destination end. Real or perceived job opportunities

and higher wages in the city are the main pulls. Rural-urban disparities in other opportunities and

services are also responsible. A large proportion of rural-urban migrations are due to marriage

and other familial reasons. Table 7 summarizes the findings of several studies on reasons for

migration to Dhaka city. The push factors at rural end are both economic and environmental,

while Dhakas agglomeration economy provides diverse opportunities and hence attract the rural

out migrants, both rich and poor.

Page | 9


10/32

Table 1: Reasons for Migration in Dhaka City

Page | 10


11/32

Source of Origin of Migrants

Rural to urban migration takes place from all districts of Bangladesh, but some districts or areas

are more out-migration prone. These districts are generally the ones with poor economic

condition, high vulnerability to natural disasters and having easy transportation linkage with the

destination city particularly metropolitan cities like Dhaka, Chittagong and Khulna. The

intervening distance, thus, is an obvious factor. The prominent (Greater) districts of migrants

Page | 11


12/32

origin are Faridpur, Barisal, Comilla, Dhaka, Noakhali and Mymenshingh (Table 8, Fig. 2)). In

recent years even such districts as Rangpur and Jessore are sending migrants to Dhaka, with

increasing poverty or lawlessness in such places.

Table 2: District of origin of the heads of migrant household in

Dhaka city

Consequences of Migration

The consequences of internal migration remain unclear. They are influenced by a range of factors

including gender, space, time, migration context and the strength of social capital amongmigrants. Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that migration provides material benefits for

migrants and their families. It is difficult to prepare cost-benefit analyses from existing studies on

internal migration as they seldom provide data on costs. However, Kuhns qualitative study

(2000) provides some insights. It indicated that the costs of a long weekend sojourn from Dhaka

to Barisal Division could be around Taka 500. Added to the income loss of around Taka 100 per

Page | 12


13/32

day, a four-day trip can consume more than 30% of a months potential earnings. While travel

costs and opportunity costs of internal migration depend on the distance between origin and

destination and types of job, it ultimately also depends on the strength of migrants social capital

at destination and origin. Active support and cooperation from social contacts at destination

minimise the costs of moving. Three in five permanent migrants, irrespective of whether they are

slum or non-slum dwelling, and one in two temporary migrants received wide ranging assistance,

which included free or rented accommodation, help in finding jobs, financial help etc (Afsar,

2000). Nor do such studies usually cover the migrants places of origin and destination, which is

necessary to prepare cost-benefit analyses. Furthermore, according to Hugo: remittances do not

represent the total economic losses or benefits in areas of origin since such elements as

transmission of skills, status and experience, flow of ideas, loss of economic and political leaders

and social disruption can influence development in the area of origin. In addition, second and

third round multiplier effects are often neglected in the impact of internal migration literature in

the country.

Migration and poverty

Land-poor households in the 1990s are much less dependent on the agricultural labour market.

From panel data, Hossain et al estimated that the proportion of agricultural workers was halved

between 1987 and 2000, due to greater employment opportunities generated in the rural non-

farm sector. A new class of people has emerged in rural areas, which depends more on physical

and human capital incidence of tenancy has increased, thus providing additional access to land

for land-poor households. than on land and manual labour. As a result, the Rural-urban migration

stimulated land tenancy. From their panel data, Hossain et alobserved that, in rural areas, 1.3%

of the owned land was sold, compared with 1.7% of owned land in 1987/88; land purchase wasreported at 2% in 1999/00. The higher incidence of land purchase compared to land sale

indicates the important contribution of rural-urban migration to the land market in a land-scarce

country. By purchasing rural land, urban settlers become absentee landowners, making tenancy

arrangements with relatives to cultivate their land. Subsequently, some important structural

changes can be observed with regard to household income during the reference period. Income

Page | 13


14/32

from agriculture declined from 59% to 44%, whilst income from trade, services and remittances

increased from 35% in 1987/88 to 49% in 1999/00. Hossain et al(2002) also observed that the

most dramatic increase has been in the share of remittances from relatives who migrated to cities

and overseas. The proportion of households receiving remittances in 1999/00 was 21%, almost

double the 11% of such households in 1987/88. The contribution of remittances to household

income has increased significantly from 7.3% to 12.8% over the period, registering 8.1% annual

growth when per capita income grew at 3.2%. Thus, not only have rural households adopted

emigration to urban areas as a livelihoods strategy, but rural-urban migration is an increasingly

important means of diversifying household and rural economies.15 Landless and land-poor

farmers have left the agricultural labor market for tenancies, wage labour in trade and business

enterprises, rickshaw pulling and other manual non-agricultural activities. Members of medium

and large landowning households with correspondingly larger endowments of human and

physical capital switched from cultivating their own farms to services and business. As a result,

the proportion of poor people dropped to 43% in 2000 from 59% in 1988, a reduction of 1.2%

per year. There is no direct estimate of the contribution of remittances to poverty alleviation but,

indirectly, some conjecture can be made in this regard. From initial estimates in four types of

agroecological zones, Hossain et al (2003b) found that coastal areas had the lowest levels of

poverty in 1987 and the most speedy deceleration in 2000. The next poorest zone was drought

prone areas, whilst both flood prone and favourable areas had higher levels of poverty and made

least progress in poverty reduction over time.16 In coastal regions, Hossain et al (2003b)

observed that the amount of land under tenancy was substantially higher (58%) than in other

regions (33%).

Migration and Inequality

Internal migration is often considered a source of intra-village inequality because better-off

villages and villagers learn first, and are able to avail new job opportunities whereas the extreme

poor groups are generally excluded from such opportunities (Skeldon, 1997). However, this

negative picture should not be generalised because empirical research also suggests that various

groups have benefited in different ways, depending on types of opportunities. Moreover

migration allows the migrants and their families to improve their familys resource base and

human capital. In the Bangladeshi context, the difficulties associated with separating overseas

Page | 14


15/32

and internal remittances and their impacts for the same households have been discussed earlier.

Evidence presented on impact of remittances at areas of origin also indicates its positive

contribution in poverty alleviation, generating greater and diversified employment opportunities

through multiplier effects, and strengthening both material and human capital. At the place of

destination however, existing evidence suggests growing inequality between the rich and the

poor. A longitudinal study on migration in Dhaka city (Hossain et al, 1999) indicates worsening

of income distribution between slum and non-slum residents. Slum dwellers, who are

predominantly migrants from rural areas, earned around one-third of the income of non-slum

households in 1991; this declined to onefifth in 1998. The bottom 40% saw their income drop

from 17% of the income of non-slum households to 11% while the top 10% increased from 27%

to 42%. The gini concentration ratio, a measure of income inequality, is estimated at 0.53, a

staggering increase from 0.39 in 1991. Urban inequality is not limited to income distribution but

also leads to stunted development of human capital of poorer communities. Although the

enrolment rate of their age cohorts in slum and squatter settlements in Dhaka city rose from 41%

to 58% between 1991 and 1998, more than 40% of the children remained out of school. Little

wonder, then, that Hossain et al(1999) found that nearly one-third of children in the 1015 years

age group from slums and squatters were in the labour force; the incidence of child labour

remained almost unchanged between 1991 and 1998. Participation in higher education is almost

negligible for young adult slum dwellers (Table 6, p.16). It indicates for low-income households

the mobility from low to high-income occupations through human capital formation is limited

(Hossain et al, 1999). Thus, although the urban population have been ahead of the rural

population on both poverty and social development indicators generally, the urban poor in

general and migrants in particular find it difficult to sustain economic gains in the longer run, due

to intra-urban inequality in income and deliveryof social services.

Government Policies and Instruments

Since independence, poverty alleviation and economic growth has remained the major focus of

the policy of successive governments. In the 1980s, privatization and liberalisation were

prioritised while development of human resources gained ascendancy from the 1990s. The draft

national strategy for economic growth and poverty reduction aims for pro-poor economic

growth, human development, womens advancement and closing of gender gaps, social safety

Page | 15


16/32

nets and participatory governance (ERD, 2002).22 With declining availability of land the

government faces the daunting challenge of generating employment for a labour force that is

growing faster than the population. Whilst agriculture and rural development are the cornerstones

of the present strategy, non-farm activities are rapidly expanding. However, the government fails

to provide an effective regional development framework for decentralising the industrial process

around secondary towns and periurban areas, and transforming gains from rural non-farm sectors

to high value added activities. Also, it has formulated the National Rural Development Policy

2001 to enhance the capacity and power of the rural poor to develop, protect and sustain their

livelihoods but no such policy has been formulated for urban areas, despite its acknowledgement

that poor peoples livelihood strategies often straddle the rural-urban divide. It also fails to

outline any mechanism to cover the extreme poor and migrant groups, which find themselves

largely outside of existing social security schemes of government and development NGOs. There

is also public demand for regional development and decentralisation in the face of

growing mismanagement and corruption.23 It is encouraging that the government allocates

around 20% of the development budget for local government and rural development. The

government has also outlined both medium and long-term issues to be covered under governance

and rural development, ranging from law and order, local governance, better service delivery and

rural infrastructure. Despite that, nothing is mentioned about infrastructural development

of periurban and small towns as a precondition for business investment, which in turn would

create jobs and enhance the economic mobility of rural peasants. Without effective linkages

between rural areas and small as well as periurban towns, it is difficult to address the problems of

agricultural growth effectively. Considering that not all districts have the potential for poverty

alleviation, the overall development of floodprone and favourable ecosystems deserves serious

attention in order to arrest both intra and interregional inequality, a missing dimension in the

PRSP. Moreover, inadequate infrastructure and poor and inefficient management of public

utilities have created a huge fiscal burden and hinder the infrastructure expansion required to

meet the growing needs of the economy.24 Without decentralising power, finance and other

services at the upazila/thana level, and without an effective policy framework for regional

development, it is difficult to implement participatory governance. Hence, budget allocations do

not fully reflect the governments priority to deal with growing urbanization and internal

migration and the problems of governance.

Page | 16


17/32

3.0. Methodology:

3.1. Research Design:

The survey Research method was done in the basis of research design. Each

responded interviewed on the road sides or rickshaw garages or simply on the way

of going somewhere by a rickshaw. The length of interview with each rickshaw

pullers was 15 to 20 minutes. Total 24 questions were prepared for clear knowledge

about migration. Some sample questions that was asked are;

01. What is your name?

02. What is your home district?

03. Why have you come to Dhaka?

04. How much you earn per day in Dhaka city?

05. When your income is maximum, normal day/Eid purpose / rainy day/Hartal day?

06. Are you married?

07. (If married) How many children do you have?

Since maximum rickshaw pullers were illiterate, so during the interview rickshaw

pullers only answered the question and researcher wrote the answer.

3.2. Target Population:

Our target population was low income group people who have come to Dhaka City

from different parts of the country.

3.3 Sample frame:

Page | 17


18/32

At about 100 people from different locations of Dhaka city were selected as

samples. And from each area 20 people were selected.

3.4 Sample design:

A survey of approximately 100 people from various areas of Dhaka city was done.

We have chosen four locations in Dhaka city such as Mirpur, Malibag,

Mohammedpur, and Pallabi. Random sampling process was used to select the

rickshaw pullers. And each area 20 rickshaw pullers was selected. All respondents

were adult and their ages varied from 20 to 60 years. Overall primary data

(questionnaire interview with the rickshaw pullers) were used to carry out the

research process. And for background history secondary data was also used to some

extent.

3.4.1 Sample size:

To estimate the sample size, we have undertaken the following things first:

Estimate the standard deviation of the population (10.01%)

Make a judgment about the acceptable magnitude of error (2%)

Determine a confidence level.(95% confidence level)

Later we used the following formula to find out the sample size and we have found

out our sample size 100.

N= (ZS/E)

Where, Z=standardized value corresponding to a confidence level

S=sample standard deviation

E=acceptable magnitude of error.

N=Sample size.

3.4.2 Sample selection procedure:

Sample was collected asking oral questions and recording in the questionnaire from

four locations in Dhaka city such as Mirpur, Malibag, Mohammadpur, and Pallabi . A

random sampling process was used to select the rickshaw pullers.

Page | 18


19/32

4.0. Implementation:

4.1 Data Gathering, instrument used & its development:

Researchers collected datafrom five places from Dhaka city through oral interview

and wrote on the questionnaire paper as an instrument. Overall 100 responses (the

questionnaire carries 24 questions) were gathered to have a clear concept of

migration. Finally an editing was done for minimizing error of omission.

4.2. Recruitment and training of the enumerators:

The researchers themselves performed the job of enumerator regarding data

collection and taking interview.

4.3. Field work:

To ensure the quality, the field work was done in opening the interview, asking the

question, probing for additional information, recording the responses and

terminating the interview. After that, editing was done on the raw data collected

from the respondents.

4.4. Data Processing:

4.4.1 Results & Data Interpretation:

From Annexture-02, Table 01 we found that at age range 20-30 number of

respondent were 69 (high) and at age range 40-50, number of respondents were 05

(low).

From Annexture-02, Table 02 we found that income level in Dhaka city varies from200-500 and the maximum number of respondents were at a range of 300-400.

From Annexture-02, Table 03 we found that income level in village varies from 50-

150 and the maximum number of respondents were at a range of 100-150. (Table-

02 & Table -02). From Table 5, it is seen that 22% of the total respondents have no

income in the villages or suburbs.

Page | 19


20/32

From the above result, it can be summed up that income level is much higher in

Dhaka city than that of villages & suburbs. And concentration of young aged (age

range 20-30) people is higher which 69% (Table-01).

From Table 7, Appendix-2 it is found that 77% of the age range 20-30 years is

married. So, it can also be seen that the rate of migration is high among the married

ones.

That is why high income level attracts the young aged and married rickshaw pullers

which instigate them to a tendency to migrate to Dhaka city. Other age groups may

also be attracted for the reasons like poverty, less income but the concentration is

very low.

5.0. Limitations:

Like some eminent findings, the research has some limitations too. Some of them

are as follows;

The main limitation of the research is the time constraint. So, though there is a lot

of scope of exertion in this research, only a few could be performed.

The researchers are students, so some unwanted errors may be there due to lack of

experience.

Lack of sufficient secondary data is also a reason for what the research is not that

much attractive, but, with proper field work, it was tried to demonstrate a real

picture.

6.0. Recommendation:

From Table 04, it is seen that 38% of the population sampled want to go back home

on the other hand 62% of the population want to stay here in Dhaka City. Among

this 38%, 60.5% want to go back as soon as possible.

Page | 20


21/32

In both cases (wants to return & dont want to return) if it possible to ensure the

desired level of income of rickshaw pullers then this 60.5% of the 38% who want to

go back soon & the 62% rickshaw pullers from the highly concentrated age range

20-30 would like tend to return to their home towns or villages. For the cluster ofage range 30-40 years, a proper system of social security should be developed, so

that they like to stay in their native lands without choosing an uncertain life in such

a big city like Dhaka. In consequence, migration of rickshaw pullers will come down

to a greater extent.

Page | 21


22/32

Appendix-1

QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What is your name?

_______________________________________________________________

Page | 22


23/32

2. What is your age?

______________

3. Have you come from outside of Dhaka?

Yes

No

3. What is your profession?

Service holder

Business

Student

Others

4. What is your home district?

_____________________

5. How will you describe your native place?

Rural Ares

Urban Area

6. Why have you come in the city?

Profession

Tour

Medical Purpose

Others

7. Where do you feel safe?

Rural Area

Urban Area

8. Do you like urban area?

Page | 23


24/32

Yes

No

9. If you have a chance to leave this city, will you do that?

Yes

No

10.What kind of problems you face in the urban area?

Residential place

Living cost

Population density

All of the above

11.What is the most important benefit you get from the city?

Proper Education

Medical facility

Freedom

Easy access to jobs

12.What is your opinion about urban culture?

Self centered

Friendly

Unfriendly

Proper culture for everyone

13.What is your opinion about the people of this city?

Selfish

Helpful

Neutral

Page | 24


25/32

Dangerous

14.Is it easy to manage job in the urban area?

Yes

No

15.Do you think that the environment pollution is the result of rural-to-urban

migration?

Yes

No

16.Which is the best solution to prevent this migration?

Development of rural area

Administrative decentralization by government

Improve communication between rural & urban area

Create self employment opportunity

17.In your opinion, what percent of people of this city came from outside?

50%

60%

70%

80%

18.Which one you suggest for the person who wants to come in this city?

Never come to this city

Come only when you badly need

Be a part of urban area

Permanently stay here

Page | 25


26/32

Page | 26


27/32

Appendix-2

Table 01: Categorization of Respondents on various age range

SL NO Age Range Number of Respondent

Page | 27


28/32

1 20-30 69

2 30-40 20

3 40-50 06

4 50-60 05

Total 100

Graphical representation of Table 1

No. of Respondents

Table 02: Categorization of Respondents on income level in Dhaka city

SL No Income Level In Dhaka Number Of Respondents

1 200-300 32

2 300-400 48

3 400-500 20

Total 100


Page | 28


29/32

Table 03: Categorization of Respondents on income level outside Dhaka city

SL No Income Level In Village Number Of Respondents

1 50-100 19

2 100-150 51

3 No Income 23

4 Own family Work 7

Total 100


Table 04: Categorization of Respondents depending on going back home

SL No Want To Go Back Not Want To Go back

1 27 73

Page | 29


30/32


Table 05: Categorization of Respondents on major reasons for coming back to Dhaka city

SL No Major Reason Number Of Respondents

1 No Income In Villages 22

2 Poverty 36

3 More Income 314 Others 11

Total 100


Table: 06: Categorization of Respondents on their requirement to go back home

SL No Major Reason Number Of Respondents

Page | 30


31/32

1 As soon as possible 12

2 After Sufficient Income 9

3 After 1 or 2 years 4

4 Depend On Allah 2

Total 27


Table 7: Categorization of Respondents on the basis of marital status and age group 20-30

Married 20-30 Unmarried 20-30

53 16


Page | 31


32/32

Documents

A Rough business Report: Rural to Urban Migration of People to Dhaka City