Female Migration and Urban Informal Sector in Monterrey Metropolitan Region

For an increasing number of women globalization has led to migration: more and more women are involved in internal, regional and international migration to find jobs and most of them are employed to do agricultural and domestic work. In this paper an attempt has been made to see the migration of Mexican women to urban informal sector particularly to Monterrey Metropolitan Region. The paper has found a constant flow of female migration to informal sector, though there was a decline trend during 2000 and 2002, but after that it again starts increasing significantly. Whereas the socio-demographic profile of these migrants states that they are elder in age that is to say they are more than 20 years. Very few women found less than 20 years in informal sector; this may be due to as they are young, so still they have good chances to get employment in sector formal. Moreover young populations do not have any economic pressure to sustain the family livelihood. When we compared these migrant women with their education and marital status it gives a clear picture that most of them who are occupied in informal sector are have little education and are married. However, result indicates that women in sector informal basically occupied in sellers, street vendor, craft women, working in manufacturing sector and domestic servants. between village and city, each migrant must negotiate shifts, not only in space but also in terms of personal identities and social relations: literally, the “good daughter” meets the “modern woman” (Cornwell and Brett 2004). Migration in general and rural to urban migration in particular is the process of rebalancing economic resources (human and physical ones) in order to set up a new stage of economic development. Industrialization always takes place in urban areas, and as soon as it starts, the labor force in urban areas becomes scarce, and it needs to be supplemented by labor from rural areas. Rural to urban migration although mainly caused by labor shortages in urban areas, the high population growth and, the inequality between urban and rural areas have in fact have triggered the migration so that the process becomes a problem and sometimes gets out of control. Rural to urban migration has been an important determinant of the urbanization process that all third world countries experiencing since the middle of last century. Although there is no agreement on the estimates on the intensity of rural migration flows to urban sites, there is consensus on their large importance during the 1950’s and 1960’s and their declining role on the urban population growth rate thereafter (Flórez 2000). Besides the importance of rural migration 14 ARUN KUMAR ACHARYA AND JOSE JUAN CERVANTES on urbanization rate, there is a lack of information on rural urban migration behavior during the last decade. Migratory movements are as old as humankind, as people leave their place of origin in search of a better life or livelihood. Recent global trend of migration has emerged as feminization of migration. The percentage of women in the migrant population in both internal as well as international has been increasing during the last few decades. Thus, today globalization, feminization and migration have evolved as intertwined issues. Nowadays, women are increasingly migrating as the main economic providers, or “breadwinners” for their households. The growing number of female in migration process is an inevitable outcome of feminization of poverty and feminization of employment in labor market. The contributing factors to feminization of employment are female labor is cheap, flexible, unorganized, also women can be employed as piece rate, part-time, home-based work and female migrants can be forced to accept low waged, undervalued jobs in the informal sector. The “feminization of migration” had also produced specifically female forms of migration, such as the commercialized migration of domestic workers and caregivers, the migration and trafficking of women for the sex industry, and the organized migration of women for marriage. Women migration in Mexico has become increasingly feminized since 1960 and early 70s especially to Monterrey (Arisa 1995; Durin et.al. 2007). Changes are evident not only in the increased volume, but also in the diversified patterns of migration. In recent decades, migration trends have seen an increasing feminization with the numbers of unskilled female migrants in some streams surpassing that of men. Most of these women works in urban informal sector as house maids, vegetable/fruit sellers, road side stall (ambulantes), handicraft, labor in construction, entertainers and sex workers (Durin et.al. 2007). The Scope of Research The principal aim of this paper is to examine the socio-demographic features of female migrants in Monterrey Metropolitan Region (MMR) and their type of employment absorption in urban informal sector. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY For the present research data have been obtained from secondary and primary sources. To analyze the feminization of migration in informal sector, the data have been taken from 1995-1999 ENEU (Encuesta Nacional de Empleo Urbano) data base and 2000-2004 ENE (Encuesta Nacional de Empleo) data set of INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática). Migration: Background and Theory Dual Economy and the Causes of Rural to Urban Migration: Theoretically, migration is defined simply as a process of personal movement from one area to another. However, the nature of migration and the causes for it are complex, and there is no general agreement among researchers on the causes of migration. Arguments on the differences on migration causing factors exist not only among researchers from different disciplines, but also among researchers within one discipline. Economist consider rural to urban migration as a process of labor movement from less developed to more advanced areas. First, migration theory is based on the dual economy theory by Lewis (1954); subsistence areas referring to rural – the agricultural sector where the labor force is suffering from unemployment and underemployment, and modernized areas – the industrial sector where many employment opportunities are being generated and are also suffering from labor shortage. Along the development course, the industrial sector is expanding and it requires more and more labor while the agricultural sector is stagnant with a labor surplus. Under these circumstances, the labor surplus in rural areas will supplement the labor shortage in urban areas, and in this way the rural to urban migration beings. In the subsistence sector the marginal productivity of labor is very low and workers are usually paid subsistence wages, hence wage rates in this sector barely exceed marginal products. Contract wages in the modern urban sector are much higher. Due to the differences in the wage rates migration occurs from the subsistence to the industrial sector. As long as the industrial process starts in urban areas the labor demand keeps rising, and therefore it triggers labor demand from the subsistence sector. This process continues until the wage difference between subsistent and advanced areas become zero. Although, the dual economy theory explains convincingly the cause of rural to urban migration as a result of wage rate differences, many other 15 FEMALE MIGRATION AND URBAN INFORMAL SECTOR IN MONTERREY METROPOLITAN REGION researchers have found it unsatisfactory because of a number of shortcomings (Todaro 1976). First, although the wage rate differences are an important reason for person to move from a rural to an urban area, the movement of people from rural to urban areas should not to be seen simply a case of wage differences. There are many other reasons that force people to relocate. Second, many people believe that the assumption of zero marginal productivity and labor surplus in rural areas are not very realistic. Third, the assumption that the rate of job generation in urban areas is high enough to absorb the labor from rural areas is not true in many cases. In general, industrialization in urban areas creates a high demand for labor, but nowadays under the strong threat of competition, many firms have not employed labor intensity technology, but capital intensity instead, and therefore the demand for labor in urban areas is not always high enough to absorb labor from rural areas. Finally, some researches argue that migration from rural areas to urban areas, as observed from reality, does not always go to industrial sector as in Lewis’s theory, but just comes to urban areas to work in low productivity and low wage sectors in the informal economy of the city for instance as street vendors, casual laborers or construction workers. All of these points indicate that while the neoclassical theory has explained the causes for a person to move from a rural to an urban area, it has oversimplified the causes of the migration. Lewis’s model could explain well the model of the West, but it does not fully explain the rural to urban migration in the developing world nowadays. A special feature of the developing world today is the high population growth, and therefore the migration from rural to urban area is not only because of wage differences, and labor demand in urban areas. Todaro’s Model of Rural to Urban Migration: During the 1970s, Michael Todaro published a number of papers on migration related issues, and his papers have contributed greatly to the understanding of migration. The argument on the causes of rural to urban migration continues to exceed the rates of job creation and to surpass greatly the capacity of both industry and urban social services to absorb this labor effectively (Todaro 1976). For Todaro, rural to urban migration nowadays in developing countries is not a process to equalize the wage rate differences between rural and urban areas, but on the contrary, migration today is being increasingly looked on as the major contributing factor to the ubiquitous phenomenon of urban surplus labor and as a force which continues to exacerbate already serious urban unemployment problems caused by growing economic and structural imbalances between urban and rural areas (Ayman 2002). Todaro suggests that the decision to migrate includes the perception on the part of potential migrants of a potentially higher urban income which will give them a better income, and therefore a better livelihood (Cornwell 2004). According to the Todaro approach, migration rates in excess of the growth of urban job opportunities are not only possible, but also rational and probable in the face of continued and expected large positive urban to rural income differentials. High levels of rural to urban migration can continue even when urban unemployment rates are high and are known to potential migrants. Todaro suggest that a migrant will move even if that migrant ends up being unemployed or receives a lower urban wage than the rural wage. This happens because the migrants expect that they will end up with some kinds of job that gives them a good compensation, and therefore they are willing to be unemployed or underpaid and to wait for a better job opportunity in the future. This argument explains the high flow of migrants from rural to urban areas who come to urban areas but end up unemployed. A major weakness of Todaro’s model is its assumption on expected incomes made by Todaro is also unrealistic in that the migrants are able to have enough information to project and to make a decision to move to urban area, and Todaro’s models do not take in account noneconomic factors and abstract themselves from the structural aspects of the economy (Ayman 2002). Push and Pull Factors Approach: To some extent, the pull and push factors approach to find the cause of rural to urban migration is a combination of neoclassical and Torado’s approaches. Lee (1966) develops a general schema into which a variety of spatial movements can be placed, based on the arguments in which he divided the forces influencing migrant perceptions into push and pull factors (Ayman 2002). The former are negative factors tending to force migrants to leave origin areas, while the latter are positive factors attracting migrant destination areas in the expectation of improving their standard of living. According to Lee the push factor could be more important than the pull factor, while the 16 ARUN KUMAR ACHARYA AND JOSE JUAN CERVANTES difficulties in rural areas, such as poverty, unemployment, land shortages are driving forces that urge the farmers to leave their native area, the homeland to find a new place to settle and to work. These push factors are basic factors which produce migration. The pull factors refer to job or income opportunities outside the farmers’ homeland that are so attractive that people cannot stay where they are. By these means, the job and income opportunities in urban areas or advanced sectors are pulling factors that pull the people to the urban areas to settle and to work. Although migration can be produced either by push or pull factors, according to Lee, migration mostly is a result of a combination of both push and pull factors that are associated with the areas of origin, destination and are also governed by personal factors which affect individual threshold and facilitate or retard migration (Lee 1966). Rural to Urban Migration in Mexico In Mexico until the 1990s, labor emigration was a resource only resorted to by the most needy country people who lacked the resources to ensure family survival. That is, there was a profile of migrant families. Migration was concentrated in nearby areas in which the father, head of the family, controlled what the children would do: he decided who would go, when to go and when to come back. This control over the off-spring was based on the father’s capability to ensure their future, first on the family farm or else in the neighborhood or region. There were, therefore, particular family or local-regional conditions that sustained this functioning of the family. Migration was integrated in the families as part of their reproduction strategies, which mainly revolved around agricultural and land production. It was, thus, a territorialized family organization. However, with the “rural de-agriculturization” process begun in the 1980s, emigration came to be the center of reproduction strategies for the greater part of the regional rural sector. Under current agricultural conditions, labor emigration for these rural groups is no longer an option but rather a necessity. Even for those rural groups in better conditions, emigration to the northern markets is becoming a central focus, not so much for guaranteeing their reproduction, but rather for the options it offers for capitalizing their farms. Currently, the migratory flow is very heterogeneous, according to the destinations (with movement towards the regional-traditional markets and towards the “emerging” markets in the north, the border and the United States), the objectives (the situation of need of some families is combined with the possibilities in others), the different families affected (as regards the diversity of agricultural property), the economic sectors to which they belong, the diversity of the migrants (according to age, sex, education or marital status) and the periods of absence. During the last 50 years, the structure of the Mexican population has changed significantly. Faced with fewer opportunities in the rural economy, Mexican workers have immigrated to urban areas and to the United States over the last 100 years; Mexico has experienced a transition from a rural to an urban economy. Consistent with the trend, nowadays less than 23 percent of the population lives in rural areas. However, poverty is more endemic to rural areas, where the worst cases of impoverished population is found, thus increasing migration. Rural to urban migration in Mexico has been an ongoing process. However, during the past 30 years it has grown. In particular, migration grew 182 percent from 1980 to 1994 and 352 percent between 1980 and 2002. Basically the rural to urban migration started grows since 1990s. During 1970s there were 58.7 percent urban population in the country and it grew to 71.3 percent in 1990 and in 2005 to 76.4 percent. The major destinations of migrants are Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey and Ciudad Juarez. The main reason for migration is the income differential between rural and urban sectors in the country as well as high employment opportunity. Also rural population is relatively young and less educated, and labor force works mostly in agricultural activities. The agricultural sector is dominated by small communities of farmers working on collective lands called “ejidos” that produce maize and other basic crops. Ejidos account for almost 90 per cent of all rural producers and for more than half of all arable land in the country. Of the 25 million rural habitants, little more than 3 million individuals called “ejidatarios” have rights over the 105.1 million rural hectares of ejidal land. The ejidal census of 2001 reported that ejidatarios are old, working parcels 8.5 hectares on average (SAGAR). But currently due to lack of governmental support each day the agricultural crisis is 17 FEMALE MIGRATION AND URBAN INFORMAL SECTOR IN MONTERREY METROPOLITAN REGION more in Mexico. People are no longer interested to invest them in this sector and try to escape from such crisis. Many of them intend to migrate to the other side of the border (to USA) and some to migrate to urban areas. This crisis has severely affected the females as much of their family economy depend directly or indirectly on agriculture. This crisis leads to unemployment in the country by putting them in high family pressure. Without having any other opportunity, they prefer to migrate to urban centers in search of jobs. Once they reach the urban area, it make them difficult to compete in urban labor market due to their less preparation in term of education due to which they enter urban informal sector. Conceptualization of the Urban Informal Sector The concept of the informal sector has been debated since its “discovery” in Africa in the early 1970s. Nevertheless, it has continued to be used by many policy makers, labor advocates, and researchers because the reality it seeks to capture – the large share of the global workforce that remains outside the world of full-time, stable, and protected employment – continues to be important and probably has been increasing over time. At present, there is renewed interest in informal work arrangements. This current interest stems from the fact that informal work arrangements have not only persisted and expanded but have also emerged in new guises and unexpected places. In recent years, some policy makers, activists, and researchers both within and outside the ILO – have started to use the term “informal economy” for a broader concept that incorporates certain types of informal employment that were not included in the 1993 international statistical definition of the “informal sector”. They seek to incorporate in this concept the whole of informality including both enterprise and employment relations as manifested in industrialized, transition, and developing economies. This shift toward an expanded concept of the “informal economy” reflects a rethinking of some of the key assumptions regarding the so-called “informal sector”. Those involved in the current rethinking, both within and outside the ILO, seek to incorporate the real world dynamics in labor markets today – particularly the employment arrangements of low-income workers. The Resolution concerning Statistics of Employment in the Informal Sector, adopted by the Fifteenth International Conference of Labor Statisticians in 1993, defined the informal sector as follows: 1. The informal sector is regarded as a group of household enterprises or unincorporated enterprises owned by households that includes: • Informal own-account enterprises, which may employ contributing family workers and employees on an occasional basis; and • Enterprises of informal employers, which employ one or more employees on a continuous basis. 2. The enterprise of informal employers must fulfill one or both of the following criteria: size of unit below a specified level of employment and non-registration of the enterprise or its employees. This framework proposed by the ICLS Resolution allows countries to adapt the basic operational definition and criteria to their specific circumstances. In particular, flexibility is allowed with respect to the upper limit on the size of employment; the introduction of additional criteria such as non-registration of either the enterprise or its employees; the inclusion or exclusion of professionals or domestic employees; and the inclusion or exclusion of agriculture (ILO 2002). On the other hand, Keith Hart developed the concept of informal economy in the early 1970s as a result of a research project for the International labor Organization (ILO) on urban labor market in Africa (Portes 1994; Tokman 1992). However, after almost thirty years of research on informal activities, there is still no consensus on its definition. The term informal economy covers a set of heterogeneous activities, from unpaid labor to any number of unregulated salaried jobs. This broad range of activities has made it difficult for analyst of the informal sector to agree on its definition. The differences in conceptualization of the informal sector rely largely on four key elements: state regulation, size of the firm, dynamism and integration. The first two elements affect the size of the urban informal sector, whereas the last two are related to its function. Three main approaches can actually be identified: dualistic, excessive regulated and structural articulation (see Table 1). State regulation is a common feature in all three approaches, suggesting an implicit consensus that the informal sector refers to activities taking place outside established institutional rules. However, the reasons for the existence of unregulated activities differ because of survival strategies, functional requirements, 18 ARUN KUMAR ACHARYA AND JOSE JUAN CERVANTES inadequate regulatory system or inefficiencies of the labor market regulations, and then their function in the labor market and the implications in terms of labor policies also differ. Table 1 summarizes the view of each approach in relation to each of the key elements. First, in the dualistic approach the informal sector is considered as the disadvantaged sector of a dualistic or segmented labor market not linked to formal activities. In fact, it views the informal economy as the collection of marginal enterprises characterized by: low entry barriers in terms of skills, capital, and organizations; family ownership enterprises; small scale of operation; labor intensive production with outdated technology; unregulated and competitive markets; low levels of productivity; low levels of capacity for accumulations (Portes 1994; Tokman 1992). Second, the excessive regulated economy approach sees informality as the response to the with different goals and roles in labor market: informal activities with direct subsistence goals (subsistence informal sector); and dynamic activities with decreasing labor costs and capital accumulation goals (salaried workers of large and small firms, and owners of small firms). The former is a disadvantaged sector with a counter cyclical behavior, and the latter one is integrated to the formal sector showing a pro-cyclical behavior (Flórez 2002). In the case of Mexico, 1990s were a period of great economic change in the country. Restructuring programmes early in the 1990s resulted in more liberal financial policy and greater privatization of the economy. In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed. A financial crisis occurred at the end of 1994 and GDP fell 6.2 percent for the year –the largest drop during the century. A quick economic recovery followed with sustained economic growth for the latter half of the decade. At the end of the decade the informal economy continued to be important to both employment and the GDP of Mexico. In 2005 informal employment accounted for 70 per cent of total employment in Mexico (INEGI 2006). In terms of absolute numbers, in the year 2005, 17.7 million men compared to 12.3 million women were employed in informal economy. With respect to GDP, the informal economy contributes 25 per cent of Mexico’s GDP (INEGI 2006). Origin of Female Migrants in Monterrey Metropolitan Region In this section we have analyzed the places of origin of female migrants in informal labor market. Table 2 shows the result of proportion of female migrants during 1995 to 2004 with comparison to male migrants in the same sector. The table indicates a continuous fluctuation in the flow of both male and female migrants to the informal sector of Monterrey Metropolitan Region, though in 2004 the female migrants in Table 1: Conceptualization of the urban informal sector by approach