Research Work

“Social Status of emigrant and non-emigrant families: Comparative study of village

Chak Kamala, Gujrat, Pakistan”

Adila Kokab

E.mail: [email protected]

Postal Adress: Attique-ur- Rehman s/o Muhammad Arshad vill & P/O Kasib, Gujrat, Pakistan

Huma Butt


Fakhra Umbreen


mailto:[email protected]



Abstract:

This study was conducting to compare the social status of emigrant and non-emigrant

families. The current study was based on primary data of village Chak Kamala of Tehsil and

District Gujrat. In this study questionnaire schedule was used for data collection. The

researcher selected total 175 households for collected information by using formula of sample

estimation. In this study, researcher used the proportional method and then selected the

number of respondent from both stratums. By this procedure 85 households selected from

emigrant’s households and 90 from non-emigrant’s households. Then for selecting desire

number of respondents from each stratum researcher used simple random sampling by

lottery method (Goldfish method). Then from selected household’s researcher was taken

interview from head of households. In the current study researcher used Mann Whitney-U

test for quantitative and frequency tables for qualitative questions. It was concluded that

those families who have any member abroad enjoyed higher social status than those families

from which no one living abroad. It is time that governments and the international community

identify the importance of emigration that is the main and important source for not only

increasing the social status of homes but it also take an important role in the development of

economy of the country and nation if remittances used in appropriate manner. There should

be need to give proper attention to emigrants for achieving nation’s development.

Key words: Emigrant Household. Non-emigrant Household. Standard of Living. Rural Gujrat.

Introduction

Emigration is a global issue. When the people not find the opportunities of job or way to earn proper

money then they migrate toward other countries. It has some time unpleasant but most of the time

hopeful affects on the communities and nations both on origin and destination country (UNCTAD, 2011)1.

The emigrants send remittances to their homes that helped the families of international emigration in

enjoying the higher living standard as compared to non-emigrant families. In the case of Pakistan the

reason is that when the received money transform in to Pakistani money this increased its value.

Pakistan is also a developing country with high population growth rate so the opportunities are less and

seekers are higher. When the persons were not found any job then they have taken a decision about

migration. In the result Pakistan became a country from which most of the population migrated for earning

livelihood. The majority of migrant workers are on the job class men who variety of position alone leaving

away their wives and children behind. These men are willing to sacrifice old age with their families for

what they see as their alone opportunity to flight poorness in a club with express up quality. Most of the

Pakistanis present in Middle Asia (forty five percent), in Europe (twenty nine percent) and in America

(twenty three percent) of the migrant. And most of them belonged to rural areas (Govt. of Pakistan 1998).

In addition, Pakistan is one of the major countries who receive its major income as remittances from

emigrants. US$ 7.3 billion remittances received by Pakistan (Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2010). These

remittances helped increasing social status of families who stayed at home. Families generally use the

abroad earnings for consumer goods. So these remittances affected positively on receiving households.

They contribute more in health as well as in education. About ten million people that are 8% of the

population of Pakistan involved in migration either internal or international. In 1998 remittances are US

2.4 billion that contributed 4% in the GNP of Pakistan (PCO, 1998). In the other hand its not only

beneficiated to country but it also increase the economy of recipients households. The migrant’s families

found more income by exchanging the foreign currency in Pakistani rupees. Where as the families of non-

migrant enjoy less income and less improvement in their social status. Because most of them have job in

agriculture sector, in which the condition is so worse. Because where the two persons are enough for land

there almost ten to twelve persons waste their energy and time. Because income is the source now-a-

1 United Nation Conference on Trade and Development

days is considered a measure of higher living standard. And higher the living standard of families higher

would be their social status. And according to researcher’s view, emigration sometime creates a

competition environment at local level. Because when someone emigrates to any other country, he/she

do straight up social mobility and the socio-economic status of the emigrant’s family boost up from the

local person’s/ non-emigrant’s social status. In Pakistan some districts as Rawalpindi, Jehlum, Gujrat,

Gujranwala, and Sialkot are the major areas from which the more individuals move toward other countries

for seeking the job and also for study purpose. The emigrant’s families are mostly having establishment

on the basis of remittances received from emigrant. There is a head in the family who have

responsibilities of all household (family members), he receives the remittances and allocated budget of

the household. In the districts especially in rural Gujrat, the same person (head of household) is in full

hold in decision-making about all the members of the family. Mostly the males are the head of household

but in many cases when the males migrate toward other country then these responsibilities are

automatically shift from males toward females. The male are mostly migrate because in traditional

societies and communities, the role of females is to be staying at home and take care of children. Her role

is also to look after the other family members and fulfill their needs. In such conditions migration to other

countries is subject with males than by females. In fact, many well defined models of household decision

making about emigration is taken as that it is the male of the household who would be migrate and earn

money for their families left behind at home country. In more parts of the universe migrants remittances

have already done large indefinite amount to lift up communities from extreme poorness put nutrient on

the table of families and also to increase families’ budget by that they improve home condition and

children’s education (IOM, 2010).

Research Question of the study

The chances of betterment in social status of emigrant families are higher as compared with non-emigrant

families.

Literature Review

(David et al, 2011) found that the persons who migrate were mostly having average education and skills.

He also concluded that there was positive relationship between wealth and remittances. He also analyzed

that families who received remittances have more saving than before receiving remittances.

(Jhon, 2009) said that the only exceptions are that stayer adults in households have higher education

than migrants. He also found that families with a person abroad are richer households than stayers in

non-migrant households. He also found that families with a person abroad are richer households than

stayers in non-migrant households.

(United Nation 2008) reported that remittances send by migrants are one of the most crucial effect of

international move. They have a reflective encroachment on the quality of life of millions of poor

households in developing countries. At the family even remittances improve advisable beingness and

efficient protection by providing acute resources for disbursement on alkalic living needs much as nutrient

and lodging as advisable as on better wellness attention and instruction. Remittances also provide

income for investment, savings and entrepreneurial activities which, in turn, have stimulating effects on

the local and national economies. It also according those families with migratory members tends to rich

person better lodging and a higher charge per unit of possession of user things than families without

migrants.

(IOM 2007) reported that eighty five percent members of migrant household agreed that their income

increased after migration of family member, it also reported that mostly the households who received

remittances they used it for daily needs such as food, clothes or rent, a second priority is represented by

consumer durables like TV, computers and the rest for home renewals, cars, investments on education

etc.

(Islam et al 2007) conducted the study in Bangladesh; they found that the prime age of migrants was in

the range of thirty to thirty four years. They argued that seventy percent of heads of household had an

average income was 2000 taka per month. But thirty seven percent of migrants earned taka 3000 and

over. They also concluded that agriculture was the main sector for employment of the area. Mostly the

migrant’s heads of households lift up their income which provided access to better consumption.

Objectives

1. To know the trends of emigration in village Chak Kamala, district Gujrat (Punjab).

2. To see the social status of non-emigrants and emigrants families.

3. To compare the social status of both families (emigrants and non-emigrants).

Methodology

This study was conducted in a village named Chak kamala of District Gujrat. This is situated in the North

of Gujrat District. This village is 20km away from Hafaz Hayat Campus, University of Gujrat. Chak Kamala

is actually the combination of three villages (Tulka, Muralli and Sarrang). In this study all the household

either have emigrant or not of village Chak Kamala, district Gujrat taken as Universe. Head of household

(Some one who have responsibility of his/her family of both emigrant’s and non-emigrants’ families) was

taken as a sampling unit. For the current study researcher was not found any sampling frame. There were

households list available from Nazim of the village but there was no differentials between emigrant and

non-emigrants household. So, researcher went to field before collecting data and constructs the sampling

frame for her study. In the current study the population was known (sampling frame was available) so

researcher used the Probability Random Sampling for taking decision about her respondent. Researcher

used statistical formula for selection of sample size. The total sample size is determined by statistical

formula for sample estimation. The formula is:

2n= N1+N ¿¿

In the study researcher took the alpha = 0.05 because it assumed to be more suitable for random

sampling.

n=175

The researcher used stratified random sampling in the present study. The households divided into two

strata. In which one stratum is emigrants households and second stratum was those households from

which no any one gone abroad. And then by proportional method the number of respondent from each

2 n = Sample size, N= Population size, e = Level of precession (aplha)

stratum was selected. The proportional formula is as following:

ni=N i

N× n , for i=1,23

Researcher was taken emigrants household as one stratum and non-emigrant households as other

stratum. The sample sizes for both strata were estimated by formula. The researcher took the sample

size of 90 households from non-emigrants and 85 from emigrant’s households respectively. List A and B

were prepared for emigrants and non-emigrants household respectively. However, simple random

sampling was used to select the respondents for the current study by lottery method.

Researcher used questionnaire as a tool for data collection. It was prepared in English and then

translated in Urdu language for collecting data. The interview schedule contained close as well as open

ended questions. The data were analyzed by using SPSS version 16.0 for windows. In this study,

researcher used Independent t-test for quantitative if they were normal and if that were not follow to

normal distribution then researcher will used Mann-Whitney U-test. This test would be selected because

researcher want to compare two independent populations and these tests considered most suitable for

comparative analysis. Most of the questions were categorized and coded before the data entry process.

For the application of appropriate statistical test, some questions were recoded for the reduction of data.

Researcher used Non-parametric test for qualitative type of questions.

Limitation of the study

In the present study researcher was taken only one occupation from a household if more than one person

engage with different jobs. Only main source of income has been taken as household way of livelihood.

The other limitation is that if a household have more than one vehicle then only big and more expansive

vehicle was taken and ignore all other. In some cases the earner of the family are both male and female

but respondent (head of household) give information only about male earner and not talked about female

may be because of social and tradition values. The one more limitation is that in few cases the members

3 ni= Samlpe size of the ith stratum, N i= Population size of ith stratum, N = Total population size, n = Total sample

size.

of the family enrolled in both public and private educational institution. So in this question researcher

considered only private educational institution. Because researcher’s objective to measure social status.

And if they have expensive vehicle and private schooling then it meant that they have potency to availing

all.

Results and discussion

Table 1: Distribution of demographic characteristics

Demographic Characteristics

Categories

Migrant families Non-migrant families

Freq. % Freq. %

Gender of respondent Male 19 22.4 77 85.6

Female 66 77.6 13 14.4

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Gender of Earner Male 85 100.0 88 97.8

Female 0 0.0 2 2.2

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Enrolled in School Yes 77 90.6 57 63.3

No 8 9.4 33 36.7

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Marital Status Unmarried 32 37.6 2 2.2

Married 53 62.4 86 95.6

Widow 0 0.0 2 2.2

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Family System Nuclear 21 24.7 58 64.4

Joint 64 75.3 32 35.6

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

No of living Children 0-2 29 34.1 21 23.3

3-5 24 28.2 54 60.0

6-8 0 0.0 13 14.4

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

No. of family members 1-4 20 23 16 17.8

5-8 54 63.5 57 63.3

9-12 11 12.9 13 14.4

More than 12 0 0.0 4 4.4

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

This table shows that 22% of the respondents are male and 77% of female respondent. This indicates

that majority of respondent from emigrant households are female. But from other side (86% of) the

respondents are male and small proportion (14%) of female respondent. This indicates that majority of

household head from non-emigrant families are males. And from emigrant families mostly females are the

head of household. This also indicates that after the husband or male emigration from household the

females are the responsible for management of household.

This representation shows that 100% of the migrants are males. The table also mentions that about 98%

of the earning hands are male and 2% of female are earning hands. This indicates that long distance

migration higher among males. This shows that majority of earning hands from non-emigrant households

are male.

The counter also shows that about 91% of emigrants ever enrolled in schools and only 9% not attended

school at all. And about 63% of non-emigrants (earner hands) have ever enrolled in schools and 37% not

attended school at all. This indicates that the enrollment in school is higher among emigrants as compare

to non-emigrants.

This table shows that 62% emigrants belong to married category and almost 38% emigrants are those

who are still unmarried. The table also shows that about 96% earning hand belong to married category

and almost 2.2% non-emigrants are those who are still unmarried and 2.2% are widowed.

This study presents that majority of emigrants 75% belong to joint family systems and a bit little almost

25% belong to nuclear families. This illustrates that majority of non-emigrants 64% belong to nuclear

family systems and a bit little 35% belong to joint families. It indicates that majority of emigrants are from

joint families. This is may be due to safety of remaining families. Because if a person especially female

left behind than more issues arise mostly about their safety if they belong to joint family then they are not

any tension about them. And they live in destination countries with out any tension and burden in mind.

And more concentrate toward their jobs.

The above table shows that 34% of the emigrant has 0-2 children where as 28% have 3-5 living children.

These contents show that 23% of the non-emigrant has 0-2 children where as 60% have 3-5 living

children and 14% non-emigrants have 6-8 children. This presents that non-emigrant has more children as

compared to emigrants.

The plan demonstrates that 24% of emigrant has 1-4 members of their families where as 63% belonging

to category having 5-8 family members and 13% having 9-12 family members. The tables demonstrates

that 18% of non-emigrants have 1-4 members of their families where as 63% belonging to category

having 5-8 family members, 14% having 9-12 family members and 5% belonging to category of having

more than 12 family members. This indicates that majority of the emigrants belonging to an average

number of family members (5-8) and the trend is almost same for 1-4 family members among non-

emigrants.

Table 2: Distribution of household type and saving

Household Type Categories

Emigrant families Non-emigrant families

Freq % Freq %

Household Type Katcha 4 4.7 21 23.3

Pucka 57 67.1 66 73.3

Willa (Kothi)

Total

24

85

28.2

100.0

3

90

3.3

100.0

No.of Rooms 1-3 15 17.6 66 73.3

4-6 44 51.8 21 23.3

7-9 11 12.9 2 2.2

10-12 10 11.8 1 1.1

13-15

Total

5

85

5.9

100.0

0

90

0.0

100.0

Saving Yes 70 82.4 39 43.3

No

Total

15

85

17.6

100.0

51

90

56.7

100.0

In this table it shows that majority of emigrants 67% households type is Pucka (the household build with

cement and tails) And about 28%’s emigrants households are Willa(kothi, build double or triple story)

type. Only 5% emigrant’s household type is Katcha. The above plan shows that majority of non-emigrants

73% households type is Pucka (the household build with cement and tails). And about 23%’s non-

emigrants households are Katcha type. Only 3% non-emigrant’s household type is Willa (kothi, build

double or triple story). This indicates that more of the emigrant’s families have stable conditions of

households and more of the non-emigrant’s families have pucka households. The Willa houses are higher

among emigrants and the trend of having katcha house is higher among non-emigrants.

This table also presents that 18% emigrants households have 1-3 rooms in the house where as majority

of the emigrants have 4-6 rooms in the home that are 52%, 13% belong to the category having 7-9

rooms, 12% having 10-12 rooms and minority having 13-15 rooms that are 6%. This table also presents

that majority of non-emigrant 73% having 1-3 rooms in the house where as a bit little have 4-6 rooms in

the home that are 24%, 2% belong to the category having 7-9 rooms and minority of non-emigrant 1%

having 10-12 room.

The above figures illustrate that 82% of the emigrant’s families save some money from household

income. Only 17% emigrant’s families not have saving at all. The figures show that 43% of the non-

emigrant’s families save some money from household income and 57% non-emigrant’s families not have

saving at all. This indicates that saving pattern is famous among emigrant household. The figure

illustrates that majority of the emigrant’s families save some money from household income getting by

remittances. There is small proportion of emigrant’s families that not saving at all. But saving pattern is

not so famous among non-emigrant families.

Table 3: Distribution of luxuries assets

Luxuries

Categories


Freq % Freq %

T.V Yes 82 96.5 69 76.7

No 3 3.5 21 23.3

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

D.V.D Yes 33 38.8 32 35.6

No 52 61.2 58 64.4

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Cloth Dryer Yes 57 67.1 19 21.1

No 28 32.9 71 78.9

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Micro Owen Yes 55 64.7 18 20.0

No 30 35.3 72 80.0

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Air Conditioner Yes 48 56.5 6 6.7

No 37 43.5 84 93.3

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Heater Yes 59 69.4 13 14.4

No 26 30.6 77 85.6

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Computer Yes 45 52.9 19 21.1

No 40 47.1 71 78.9

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Internet connection

Yes 12 14.1 7 7.8

No 73 85.9 83 92.2

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Telephone Line Yes 80 94.1 23 25.6

No 5 5.9 67 74.4

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Cell phone Yes 84 98.8 79 87.8

No 1 1.2 11 12.2

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

No.of Cell Phone 1-2 41 48.2 63 70.0

3-4 39 45.9 13 14.4

5-6 3 3.5 2 2.2

7-8 1 1.2 1 1.2

No cell phone 1 1.2 11 12.2

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

This table shows that 97% emigrant’s families have their own T.V and only 3% have no T.V at all. The

given table shows that majority (77%) of non-emigrant’s families has their own T.V and 23% had no T.V

at all. This indicates that majority of emigrant and non-emigrant’s families have their own T.V.

The above figures mentioned that higher than half (61%) emigrant’s families has no their own D.V.D

where as greater than half (64%) non-emigrant’s families have no their own D.V.D in their households

and a few about 36% have their own D.V.D. This indicates that majority of both household not have D.V.D

but ratio is bit little higher among non-emigrants.

The results show that mostly the emigrant’s families (67%) have their own Cloth Dryer in their households

and a few about 33% have not their own Cloth Dryer. This indicates that majority of emigrant’s families

have Cloth Dryer and minority have not. The table shows that 79% non-emigrant’s families have no their

own Cloth Dryer in their households and a few about 21% have their own Cloth Dryer. This indicates that

majority of non-emigrant’s families have no their Cloth Dryer and minority have.

The present figures show that 65% emigrant’s families have their own Micro Own in their households and

about 35% have not their own Micro Own. The table shows that 80% non-emigrant’s families have not

own Micro Own in their households and 20% have their own Micro Own. This indicates that most of

emigrant’s families have Micro Own and some are those who have not, and most of non-emigrant’s

families have not Micro Own and some are those who have Micro Own in their homes.

The above mentioned results shows that about 57% emigrant’s families have their own Air Conditioner in

their households and about 43% belong to category which have no Air Conditioner. The table shows that

about 93% non-emigrant’s families have no their own Air Conditioner in their households and about 7%

belong to the category which have no Air Conditioner. This indicates that a bit greater emigrant’s families

have Air Conditioner and some are those who have not, where as majority of non-emigrant families not

have Air conditioners at homes.

The illustration shows that about 69% emigrant’s families have their own Heater in their households and

about 31% belong to category which have no Heater. This table also shows that about 86% non-

emigrant’s families have no own Heater in their households and only 14% belong to category which have

Heater. This indicates that most of emigrant’s families have Heater and some are those who have not at

all results are vise versa for non-emigrant families.

This table also shows that about 53% emigrant’s families have their own Computer in their households

and about 47% belong to category which have no ComputerThe table shows that about 79% non-

emigrant’s families have no Computer in their households and only 21% belong to category that has

Computer. . This indicates that a greater portion of emigrant’s families have Computer and some are

those who have not at all vise versa for non-emigrant.

The output shows that about 86% emigrant’s families have not their own Internet connection in their

households and 14% have Internet Connection at home. This also shows that about 92% non-emigrant’s

families have not their own Internet connection in their households and only 8% have Internet Connection

at home. This indicates that majority of emigrant and non-emigrant’s families have not been Internet

Connection in homes but the trend is little higher among non-emigrants.

The current plan also shows that 94% emigrant’s families have their own Tele-phone line in their

households and about 6% belong to category which have no Tele-phone line at home. The table shows

that 74% non-emigrant’s families have no Tele-phone line in their households and about 26% belong to

category which have Tele-phone line at home. This indicates that majority of non-emigrant’s families have

no Tele-phone line and minority are those who have any and vise versa for emigrant families.

This table also shows that about 99% emigrant’s families have their own Cell phone (Mobile) in their

households and only 1% of emigrant’s families have no Cell phone (Mobile) at home. The table also

shows that about 88% non-emigrant’s families have Cell phone (Mobile) in their household and only 12%

of non-emigrant’s families have no Cell phone (Mobile) at home. This indicates that majority of both

families either emigrant or non-emigrant have Cell phone (Mobile) and minority are those who have not at

all.

The result also demonstrates that majority belonging from emigrant category have 1-2 mobile in homes

that are 48% where as a bit little from this 46% having 3-4 cell phones in house. And the 4% belong to the

category having 5-6 mobile where as a little 1% having 7-8 cell phones in their homes. The table shows

that majority belonging from emigrant category have 1-2 mobile in homes that are 70% where as 14%

having 3-4 cell phones in house. And the 2% belong to the category having 5-6 mobile where as a little

1% having 7-8 cell phones in their homes. This presents that most of the families from both emigrant and

non-emigrant has 1-2 mobiles in their homes.

Table 4: Distribution of facilities preferred by families

Preferable Facilities

Categories


Freq % Freq %

Member in Education Yes 45 52.9 58 64.4

No 40 47.1 32 35.6

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Educational Institution Private institution 18 21.2 16 17.8

Public institution 27 31.8 42 46.7

No any in education 40 47.1 32 35.6

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Tuition Yes 21 24.7 15 16.7

No 24 28.2 43 47.8

No one in education 40 47.1 32 35.6

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Health Facility Public Health Center 16 18.8 39 43.3

Homeopath 50 58.8 43 47.8

Go to city Hospital 19 22.4 8 8.9

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

The value shows that about 53% emigrant’s families from which any of the family member getting

education and about 47% belong to category from which no any one getting education. The table

presents that about 65% non-emigrant’s families from which any of the family member getting education

and about 36% belong to category from which no any one getting education. This indicates that a bit

greater from non-emigrant’s families going to school or getting education than emigrant families. This

shows that the trend of sending their children/member to school is higher among non-emigrant families.

From those who go to school from emigrant families almost 32% are belong to the category whose family

member getting education from public institutions and 21% are those whose family member getting

education from private institutions. Table also shows that from those who go to school from non-emigrant

families almost 47% are belong to the category whose family member getting education from public

institutions and 18% are those whose family member getting education from private institutions. This

indicates that most of the households either emigrant or non-emigrant like to send their member/children

to public educational institution for education purpose. But the trend of sending their members in private

institutions is higher among emigrant families as compared to non-emigrant families.

The current table shows that 28% persons belonging to emigrant households getting no tuition at all and

25% are those who getting tuition from some one in the village. The table’s results shows that 48%

persons belonging to non-emigrant households getting no tuition at all and 17% are those who getting

tuition from some one in the village. This indicates that most of the persons from emigrant household not

provide any tuition to their members who get education. But the trend of sending their member/children

for tuition is higher among emigrant than non-emigrant.

The present table shows that about 19% members from emigrant’s families get treatment from Public

Health Center, 59% are those who getting treatment from Homeopaths and 22% of the family members of

emigrant’s families are go to nearest city for treatment of diseases. The table shows that about 43%

members from non-emigrant’s families get treatment from Public Health Center, about 48% are those who

getting treatment from Homeopaths and only 9% of the family members of emigrant’s families are go to

nearest city for treatment of diseases. This indicates that most of the persons relay on the Homeopaths

for getting medicine in the selected village of the researcher. But a lit greater from emigrant families go to

city for treatment as compare to non-emigrant and the result is vise versa for public hospitals.

Table 5: Distribution of event celebration by emigrant’s households

Event Celebration

Categories


Freq % Freq %

Festival Yes 65 76.5 24 26.7

No 20 23.5 66 73.3

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Birthday Yes 16 18.8 4 4.4

No 69 81.2 86 95.6

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Ritual Functions

Yes 84 98.8 86 95.6

No 1 1.2 4 4.4

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Marriage Yes 61 71.8 17 18.9

No 2 2.4 18 20.0

No Marriage 22 25.9 55 61.1

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

This table shows that about 77% emigrant household members celebrate festivals and only 23% are not

celebrating this event. This indicates that majority of the emigrant households celebrate festivals. The

table also shows that about 73% non-emigrant household members did not celebrate festivals and only

27% are celebrating this event. This indicates that majority of the non-emigrant households are not

celebrate festivals.

The table shows that about 19% emigrant household members celebrate birth days of their member and

81% are not celebrating this event. The table shows that about only 4% non-emigrant household

members celebrate birth days of their member and 96% are not celebrating this event. This indicates that

majority of the both emigrants and non-emigrant households not celebrate birthdays. But the trend of not

celebrating was a little higher among non-emigrants.

This table shows that about 99% emigrant household members celebrate Ritual functions and only 1% is

not celebrating the Ritual functions. The table also shows that about 96% non-emigrant household

members celebrate Ritual functions and only 4% is not celebrating the Ritual functions. This indicates that

majority of the both emigrant and non-emigrant households celebrate Ritual functions with passion but the

trend is little high among emigrant households.

The table shows that 72% emigrant households celebrate marriage ceremony as a function and only 2%

are those households that not arranged marriages as function celebration where as 26% households

belong to category in which no marriage within last five year arranged. The current table also shows that

20% non-emigrant households no celebrate marriage ceremony as a function and only 19% are those

households that arranged marriages as function celebration. This table shows that in 73% households

there is no marriage of any member in last five years. This indicates that majority of the emigrant’s

families celebrate the marriage ceremony as a function where as majority of non-emigrant not celebrate

marriage as a big function. This is may be because of in-equal resources.

Table 6: Distribution of transport facilities of emigrant’s families

Transport Mode Categories


Freq % Freq %

Vehicle Yes 77 90.6 38 42.2

No 8 9.4 52 57.8

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Vehicle Type Bike 61 71.8 36 40.0

Car 15 17.6 2 2.2

Cycle 1 1.2 1 1.1

No Vehicle 8 9.4 51 56.7

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

Travelling Modes

Public 25 29.4 61 67.8

Hire a vehicle 37 43.5 17 18.9

Private 23 27.1 12 13.3

Total 85 100.0 90 100.0

The table shows that about 91% emigrant’s families have their own Source of transportation (vehicle) in

their households and only 9% of emigrant’s families have no Source of transportation (vehicle) at home.

The table also shows that about 58% non-emigrant’s families have no their own Source of transportation

(vehicle) in their households and 42% of non-emigrant’s families have no Source of transportation

(vehicle) at home. This indicates that majority of emigrant’s families have Source of transportation

(vehicle) where as from non-emigrant families majority of those who have not their own vehicle. And

vehicle assumed the sign of higher status so this point out that emigrant families enjoyed higher status as

compared to non-emigrants.

The table shows that about 72% members from emigrant’s families have their own Bike about 18% are

those who have their car 1% who have Cycle and 9% have no vehicle of any type in their homes. The

table’s presents that about 40% members from non-emigrant’s families have their own Bike about 2% are

those who have their car 1% who have carry daba (Mini van) and 57% have no vehicle of any type in their

homes. This indicates that majority of emigrant households have Bike at homes and some have Cars in

the homes where as non-emigrant families mostly have their own bike.

The table shows that about 29% members from emigrant’s families used Public transports for travelling;

about 44% are those who hire a vehicle when they face any travel and 27% of the family members of

emigrant’s families who used Private mode for travelling. The table shows that about 68% members from

non-emigrant’s families used Public transports for travelling; about 19% are those who hire a vehicle

when they face any travel and 13% of the family members of non-emigrant’s families who used Private

mode for travelling. This indicates that most of emigrant families who have not their personal convince

they relay on the Hiring a vehicle for travelling where as non-emigrant families mostly travelling on public

transportation.

Income of Households (emigrant and non-emigrant):

a) Test for Normality

Ho = Data is normal

H = Data is not normal

Level of significance:

= 0.05

Test Statistics:

Shapiro-Wilk test of Normality

Calculation:

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Average income of Household per month .376 175 .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

P-value is less than so researcher reject Ho. That mean the data is not normal. So researcher can’t

apply the parametric test and move to non-parametric test.

b) Mann-Whitney U test

Ho = Income of both emigrant and non-emigrant households are equal.

H = Income of both emigrant and non-emigrants households are not equal.


= 0.05

Test Statistics:

Mann-Whitney U test

Calculation:

Ranks

Migration Status N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Average income of Household

per month

Emigrant 85 125.29 10650.00

Non-emigrant 90 52.78 4750.00

Average income of Household per month

Mann-Whitney U 655.000

Z -9.483

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

The mean rank of emigrant is higher (125.29) than non-emigrant (52.78) indicating that emigrant families’

income higher than non-emigrant families. The U test shows that emigrant lead non-emigrant (665.000)

times. The p-value is less than so researcher reject Ho and concludes that emigrant families’ income is

significantly higher than non-emigrant’s families.

Saving of Households (emigrant and non-emigrant):

a) Test for Normality:

Ho = Data is normal

H = Data is not normal


= 0.05

Test Statistics:

Shapiro-Wilk test

Calculation:

Shapiro-Wilk

Statisti

c

d.f Sig

.

Average amount of saving in one month .607 175 .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

P-value is less than so researcher reject Ho. That mean the data is not normal. So researcher can’t



Ho = Saving amount of emigrant and non-emigrant households are equal.

H = Saving amount of emigrant and non-emigrant’s households are not equal.


= 0.05

Test Statistics:

Mann-Whitney U test

Calculation:

Ranks

indi.varibl

e

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Average amount of saving in

one month

1 85 114.16 9704.00

2 90 63.29 5696.00

Total 175

Average saving per month


Z -6.837


Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

The mean rank of emigrant’s saving is higher among emigrant’s families (114.16) than non-emigrant’s

families’ saving. Mean rank point out that the saving amount among emigrant’s families is higher than

non-emigrant’s families. The p-value is less than so researcher rejects Ho and concludes that the

saving amount by the emigrant’s and non-emigrant families is not equal. The overall table shows that the

saving amount of emigrant’s families are much greater than the saving amount by non-emigrant’s

families.

Expenditure on Education (emigrants and non-emigrant’s families)


Ho = Data is normal

H1 = Data is not normal


∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:


Calculation:

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic d.f Sig.

Average expenditure on education per

month

.509 175 .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

P-value is less than ∝ so researcher reject Ho. That mean the data is not normal. So researcher can’t


b) Mann-Whitney U test (Expenditure on education)

Ho = Expenditure on education by emigrant and non-emigrant families are equal.

H1 = Expenditure on education by emigrant and non-emigrants families are not equal.


∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:

Mann-Whitney U test

Calculation:

Ranks

indi.varible N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Average expenditure on their

education per month

Emigrant 85 91.89 7810.50

Non-emigrant 90 84.33 7589.50

Average expenditure on education per

month


Z -1.025


Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

The mean rank shows that expenditure on education is higher among emigrant’s families (91.89) than

non-emigrant (84.33). The U test is point out that 3494.500 times emigrant led the non-emigrant’s

expenditure. The p-value is larger than ∝ it indicates that there is no significant difference between

expenditure of emigrant and non-emigrant’s families on education.

Expenditure on health (emigrant and non-emigrant’s families)


Ho = Data is normal



∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:


Calculation:

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Monthly expenditure on Health and

Exercise

.591 175 .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:




Ho = Expenditure on health care and exercise of both emigrant and non-emigrant families are equal.

H1 = Expenditure on health care and exercise of both emigrant and non-emigrants families are not equal.


∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:

Mann-Whitney U test

Calculation:

Ranks


Monthly expenditure on Health

and Exercise

Emigrant 85 112.25 9541.50

Non-emigrant 90 65.09 5858.50

Total 175

Monthly expenditure on Health and

Exercise


Z -6.253


Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

The mean rank shows that expenditure on health is higher among emigrant’s families (112.25) than non-

emigrant (65.09). The U test is point out 1763.500 times emigrant led the non-emigrant’s expenditure.

The p-value is less than ∝ it indicates that the expenditure on health by emigrant and non-emigrant’s

families is significantly differing.

Expenditure on Festivals and birth days:


Ho = Data is normal



∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:


Calculation:

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Average expenditures on festivals and

birth days

.769 175 .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:




Ho = Expenditure on festivals and birth days of both emigrant and non-emigrant are equal.

H1 = Expenditure on festivals and birth days of both emigrant and non-emigrants are not equal.


∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:

Mann-Whitney U test

Calculation:

Ranks


Average expenditures on

festivals and birth days

Emigrant 85 115.99 9859.00

Non-emigrant 90 61.57 5541.00

Total 175

Average expenditures on festivals and

birth days


Z -7.578


Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

The mean rank shows that expenditure on festivals and birth days are higher among emigrant’s families

(115.99) than non-emigrant (61.57). The U test is point out how much time emigrant led the non-

emigrant’s expenditure. The p-value is less than ∝ it indicates that the expenditure on celebration of

festivals and birth day parties by emigrant and non-emigrant’s families is significantly differing and higher

amount spent by emigrant’s families. And overall table shows that emigrant families spent more money on

festivals and birth days as compared to non-emigrants families.

Expenditure on Ritual functions (emigrants and non-emigrants):


Ho = Data is normal



∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:


Calculation:

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Average expenditures on Ritual

Functions

.528 175 .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:




Ho = Expenditure on ritual functions by emigrant and non-emigrant are equal.

H1 = Expenditure on ritual functions by emigrant and non-emigrants are not equal.


∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:

Mann-Whitney U test

Calculation:

Ranks

indi.varibl

e

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks


Functions

1 85 114.61 9741.50

2 90 62.87 5658.50

Total 175


Functions


Z -6.783


Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

The mean rank shows that expenditure on ritual celebration is higher among emigrant’s families (114.61)

than non-emigrant (62.87). The U test is point out that (1563.500) times emigrant led the non-emigrant’s

expenditure. The p-value is less than ∝ it indicates that the expenditure on ritual celebrations by emigrant

and non-emigrant’s families is significantly differing and higher amount spent by emigrant’s families on

ritual functions.

Expenditure on marriage ceremony (emigrants and non-emigrants)


Ho = Data is normal



∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:


Calculation:

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Average amount spent on a marriage .719 175 .000

Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:




Ho = Expenditure on marriages by both emigrant and non-emigrant are equal.

H1 = Expenditure on marriages by both emigrant and non-emigrants are not equal.


∝ = 0.05

Test Statistics:

Mann-Whitney U test

Calculation:

Ranks


Average amount spent on a Emigrant 85 109.24 9285.50

Non-emigrant 90 67.94 6114.50

marriage

Total 175

Average amount spent on a marriage


Z -5.804


Critical region:

p−value<∝

Conclusion:

The mean rank shows that expenditure on marriage ceremony is higher among emigrant’s families

(109.24) than non-emigrant (67.97). The U test is point out (2019.500) times emigrant led the non-

emigrant’s expenditure. The p-value is less than ∝ it indicates that the expenditure on marriages

celebrations by emigrant and non-emigrant’s families is significantly differing and higher amount spent by

emigrant’s families on marriage functions.

Conclusion

The researcher concludes that the emigration has the positive effect on remaining household social

status. By the emigration of any member of family the social status of the families tainted and they moves

to upper status. The social status of those families from which any of the family member went abroad is

higher as compared to those households fro which no any member of the family went abroad. The

survival of emigrant families is easy than those non-emigrants families, and the families of the emigrant

availing luxury life. People belonging to non-emigrant families have lower social status as compared to

the emigrant’s families. The emigrant’s families have higher monthly income as compared to non-

emigrant’s families. They also have more saving than non-emigrant’s families.

Recommendation for the Policy makers:

1. It is time that governments and the international community identify the importance of

emigration that is the main and important source for not only increasing the social status of

homes but it also take an important role in the development of economy of the country and

nation if remittances used in appropriate manner.

2. There should be focus on the person who emigrates or who wants to be emigrating and

provide them the skills that help them in destination countries. Technical education also

provide them by this they engaged in respectable jobs with higher pay it also indirectly take a

part in country’s development.

References:

David, A., Grigorian., and Tigran A., (2011, February). Destined to Receive: The Impact of Remittances

on Household Decisions in Armenia.” Review of Development Economics, 15/1, 139–153.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd Issue also published online in 13 January 2011.

Economic Survey of Pakistan 2010 published in June 2010.

IOM., (2007). “Remittances in the Republic of Moldova: Patterns, trends and effect.”

International Migrants Day., (2010). “Governments need to open their eyes to the benefits of migration

and share that vision with the public at large”. International Organization of Migration, 17

December 2010. GENEVA- 18 December 2010: IOM Press Release.

PCO., (1998). “Population Census of Pakistan, 1998”

Rafiqul, I,. Entazul, H,. and Faruk, A,. (2007). “Living Standard of Migrants: A Study of Katakhali

Pourusova in Rajshahi District, Bangladesh.” 5/ 7.

Shikha, J,. Guntur, S,. and Carlos, V,. (2009). “The Global Crisis and the Impact on Remittances to

Developing Asia.” ADB Economics Working Paper Series, 185/December.

United Nation,. (2008). “Key trends and challenges on international migration and development in Asia

and the pacific.” United Nations expert group meeting on international migration and development

in Asia and the pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, (20-21, September, 2008). United Nations Economic

and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

United Nation,. (2011). “Maximizing the Development Impacts of Remittances” United Nation expert

meeting in Geneva, 14-15, February, 2011). United Nation Conference on Trade and

Development (UNCTAD).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I want to pay my thank Mr. Tauqeer Hussain Shah who helped me making in questionnaire problems he

helped me very humbly and I learned much from him.

Mr. Rizwan Mirza and Mr. shoiab who welcomes me very warmly in helped me in SPSS work and

analysis stage.

I also want to thank to Miss Anila Erum who always encourage me that motivate me to do my work with

full devotion.

I also thanks to my brother Hamza Sitar, Novera Falaq and Misbah Roohi who help me during

construction of lists and also in data collection. And also pay thanks to my twin brother for his cooperation

during paper writing stage. At the end, I am very thankful to my parents, sisters and brothers who all are

very cooperative.