| dc.description.abstract | Intra-rural migration is not an insignificant
phenomenon. Apart from being fairly substantial, it has
also positive and negative effects on the migrantrs farming
performance and on the agricultural economy as a whole.
Positively, there is a substantial hectarage increase per
migrant after migration than before migration which
potentially signify a better economic state; there is
also an increase in the individual shamba ownership status
which gives the migrant greater and free farming exploitation
latitude including morgaging for development capital; the
number of families who employ others for labour also increases,
which is a contributory factor to the general employment
situation in the rural areas; there is, further, an
indication towards increased agricultural productivity
given migrant devotion to farming and available capital
investment. On the negative Side, haphazard intra-rural
migration can cause disruption in agricultural production
continuity especially when a migrant is already well established
on his original holding. -This type of migration can also
have an adverse effect on the migrantts own socio-economic
position.
We argue, on the basis of the above factors that
in order to improve loop-holes in the intra-rural migration
which would lead to disruption in the agricultural production
continuity, migrant adjustment efforts must be tightened in
terms of (a) efficient and ample extension education service,
(b) credit facilities which take into consideration the
migrant's unique problems,
(d) welfare facilities and
where appropriate.
(c)
(e)
ample marketing facilities,
careful migrant selection
What comes alight is the complete lack of useful
statistical information on intra-rural migration in terms
of farm incomes, records of residence and migration indices
and employment generation which we would like to recommend
for further investigation. | en |
