Social Impact of Globalization

Social Impact of Globalization
Migration Internal:
It is well established that the greater the gap in earnings between origin and destination, the more likely are working age adults to move. Many migrants to urban areas initially enter the informal sector. For some this is a transitory phase prior to finding more formal employment. However, statistical studies of these patterns are plagued by the lack of precision in defining the informal sector and the evidence does not make it clear whether the formal or informal sector offers higher pay to observationally equivalent workers.
Globalization has changed the demographic factors regarding Internal Migration:
The push factors that are the factors which forces the population to leave the original place to urban places have intensified; the push factors which operate in places of origin, in this case the rural areas, is lack of resources, unemployment, overpopulation, drought or floods or such other natural calamities, essentially all such factors which makes a decent living standards impossible.
Th pull factors of cities are many- employment opportunities, entertainment, education facilities, trade centres, institutional set ups, availability of opportunities, secular environment etc. Ashish Bose, argues that the push and pull factors should be interpreted in overall demographic contexts.
At 833.1 million, India’s rural population today is 90.6 million higher than it was a decade ago. But the urban population is 91 million higher than it was in 2001. The Census cites three possible causes for the urban population to have risen by more than the rural: ‘migration,’ ‘natural increase’ and ‘inclusion of new areas as ‘urban.’ But all three factors applied in earlier decades too, when additions to the rural population far outstripped those to the urban. Why then is the last decade so different? While valid in themselves, these factors cannot fully explain this huge urban increase. Ironically this is a census in which the decadal growth percentage of population records “the sharpest decline since India’s independence.”
Take the 2001 Census. It showed us that the rural population had grown by more than 113 million since 1991 and the urban by over 68 million. So, rural India had added 45 million people more than urban. In 2011, urban India’s increase was greater than that of rural India’s by nearly half a million, a huge change.
The Census data, however, do not convey the harshness and pain of the millions trapped in “footloose” migrations. That is, the desperate search for work driving poorer people in many directions without a clear final destination. Like Oriya migrants who work some weeks in Raipur, then a couple of months at brick kilns in Andhra Pradesh, then at construction sites in diverse towns in Maharashtra. Their hunger and contractor drive them to any place where there is work, however brief. There are rural migrations to both metro and non-metro urban areas, towns and smaller cities. There are also rural to rural migrations. There are urban-urban migrations. And even, in smaller measure, urban to rural migrations.