Sub-indices of the practices under return migration intentions (RMI)

It has been noted in the previous chapter that there were only a few practices which were performed by category A respondents explicitly under return migration intentions (RMI) during the study period. These explicit performed practices constituted 16.0 % of the total remittances sent by category A respondents. Among these performed practices, one practice was performed by a respondent who was not affected by the outcomes of the

7%

13%

68%

5% 7%

Gifts index

Human capabilities index Housing market index Business markets index Financial markets index

177 Graph 10.2: Sub-indices by category

Source: Own construct

economic crisis (Type B respondent) and thus, the remittances under the explicit RMI by Type A respondents were 14.0 % of the total remittances. Further, if we include the practices which were performed partly under RMI by type A respondents only, the remittances share became 16.2 % of all the remittances. But the questions still remaining are: what were the implications of those performed practices and how much, had the practices impacted the urban development within the constructed frame of UDI?

First, we look at the practices which were explicitly carried out under RMI. The first practice was the vertical extension of a family house in an urban place. Although a significant amount of 12,000 Euro was invested in this practice, it only received a sub-index score of 6.9 for this performed practice. This practice received only three positive values for the aspects of creating additional space, creation of a durable structure and generation of construction activity. On the other hand, a non-approval from the concerned local planning authority and causing a loss to local government revenue, the same practice received two negative values, and thus they balanced each other out and received a sub-index score of 6.9. The second practice was the purchase of a new housing unit. On account of distance from the city center and its location in suburban areas, it received a negative value, while for rest all associated and applicable aspects, it got positive values, which resulted in a high sub-index of 62.1 for this performed practice. The third practice was the investment in a running business located in a rural place while the owner of the business, i.e. the respondent’s brother along with his family was living in an urban place. For the aspect of benefit to the families, this practice received a positive value, while all other aspects, due to its rural location, were regarded as neutral and received values of ‘0’. Thus, this practice received a low sub-index of 2.4 only. The fourth explicit practice under RMI was carried out by a type B respondent who was constructing a new house. The respondent did that practice in a rural location, hence I conceived all the associated aspects of this performed practice as neutral for urban development and the sub-index of this practice also came out as ‘0’ (Table 10.9).

Moreover, there were two practices which were performed partly under RMI as other motivations were highlighted at the same time. The remittances invested in these two practices were considerably lesser than the remittances sent under explicit RMI, but their

0 50 100 150 200 250

Gifts index Human capabilities

index

Housing market index

Business markets index

Financial markets index

Index points

Category A Category B

Chapter 10 Implications for Urban Development

178 impact on the urban development was significantly larger as compared to the impact of the practices which were carried out explicitly under RMI. One practice was the investing in a saving scheme which received positive values on account of financial capital accumulation, profit/interest generation and benefit to the family in Pakistan.

Table 10.9: Sub-indices of the practices performed under RMI (only remittance based practices)

Practices Type Remit. (Euro) Sub-index

Explicitly under RMI Extending family home A 12,000 6.9

Purchasing a house A 26,451 62.1

Investing in a running business A 2,745 2.4

Constructing a new house B 5,749 0

Sub-total 46,945 71.4

Partly under RMI Investing in a saving scheme A 5,000 11.4

Improving family house A 1,539 13.8

Sub-total 6,539 25.2

Total 53,484 96.6

Source: Own construct

The other practice was the improvement of conditions and structural quality of a family house. This practice received two positive values for the aspects of durability and construction activity generation and hence received a sub-index of 13.8. So, in total, the calculated value of UDIRMI was 96.6 which constituted 22.5 % of the total UDI of all the performed practices. But the practices which were carried out explicitly under RMI, the figure came out at 71.4 (16.7 %). To sum up, almost one sixth of the total positive impact on the urban development sector of Pakistan, within the constructed frame (UDI) was produced by the practices performed explicitly under RMI during the study period which was a significant figure. This was almost the same fraction of the total remittances, which were sent to perform practices explicitly under return migration intentions.

10.3 Concluding summary

Overall, the performed practices contributed positively to urban development in Pakistan at micro level. The various associated aspects of the performed practices were studied in accordance with the UN-Habitat urban indicators, with suitable amendments adapted for household and neighbourhood levels. From case to case, these associated aspects had positive, neutral or negative implications for urban development. The associated aspects of some of the performed practices with negative implications for urban development, were non-approval from the concerned planning authority, loss of revenue for local government, excessive distance from the city center, change of land use, nuisance generation, absence of parking spaces and non-compliance with the safety measures. All other associated aspects of the carried out practices had neutral or positive implications for urban development. The most frequent aspects which had positive implications for urban development were, general consumption including the usage of sent/carried gifts, gender inclusion, improvement of living conditions/structural quality of the family houses and the generation of the construction activity.

By considering the amount of remittances as the main impacting factor for various performed practices, it has been found that the practices carried out in the housing sector/

markets had the largest positive impact on the urban development within the constructed

179 frame of Urban Development Index (UDI). The lowest impact exerting practice was of sending/carrying gifts. About two third of the total positive impact on the urban development was exerted by the practices performed in the local housing sector/market.

While around one fifth of the total impact was contributed by the practices performed for the human capability development (including the activity of sending/carrying gifts). It has been found that slightly more than one fifth of the total impact was exerted by the practices which were performed partly or explicitly under RMI by the affected respondents. More specifically, about one sixth of the total positive impact was contributed by the practices carried out explicitly under return migration intentions by the affected respondents.

Chapter 11