IV. Urban and Rural Poverty Trends
It would be
important to
design a survey
that could help
policymakers
identify the
conditions of
recent migrants
into urban areas.
20
districts, 30-70% of family plots could not be used because of poor
soil or water conditions. Consequently, low-income families often
became mired in a ‘poverty trap,’ lacking the resources necessary to
upgrade the quality of their land.
In addition, while many families owned livestock or poultry, such
assets were usually meager. Moreover, they faced a perennial shortage
of fertilizers, chemical pesticides or seeds.
As a result of limited local income-generating opportunities, about
one-fifth of households expressed an interest in migrating from the
district. Such willingness was strongest in families that lacked a private
plot or were unable to cultivate it. Most migrants from Karakalpakstan
had gone to Russia or Kazakhstan, while those from Namangan Region
usually had gone to Tashkent City or Russia.
Migrant workers were identified in 10-27% of the surveyed families.
On average, there was one migrant worker per household. And their
income was, in fact, 5-10 times higher than any other category of
family income. It is not unusual for the economic conditions of rural
households to improve as a result of remittance income, but the
conditions of migrants in the cities to which they have moved might
be relatively deprived.
There needs to be a survey that could help policymakers identify the
conditions of recent migrants in urban areas. In some cities, there is now
probably a poor stratum of workers (by urban standards) unrecorded in
official statistics.