Key Details
The South India Interstate Migration Survey 2026, conducted by the International Institute of Migration and Development with UNFPA support, examines both the gains from migration and the protections available to workers at their destinations.
Among 1,824 Workers Surveyed Across 33 Districts | Finding |
|---|---|
Reported improved living standards after migration | 71.8% |
Classified as circular migrants, moving between origin and destination | 82.0% |
Found work through friends or relatives | 62.7% |
Had no written employment contract | 86.4% |
Had accident insurance | 1.0% |
Recorded low welfare portability and social protection | 45.3% |
Fieldwork ran from 15 December 2025 to 31 March 2026 in Karnataka, Keralam and Tamil Nadu. The survey covered selected sectors, including agriculture, fishing and daily labour in all three states.
Migration Brings Gains, but Work Remains Insecure
Workers cited low wages, irregular employment and limited opportunities at home as reasons for moving. 71.8% reported better living standards after migration, and 56.9% intended to continue working in their destination state. These are workers’ reported experiences, not proof that migration improved every aspect of their welfare.
Employment protection has not kept pace. 86.4% had no written contract, 57.6% were paid in cash, and respondents worked an average of 9.87 hours a day. Only 12.8% reported awareness of their labour rights or support programmes. Workplace risks were also poorly insured: 15.6% reported an accident in the preceding year, while just 1.0% had accident insurance.
Access to Banking Has Not Ensured Access to Welfare
The distinction between financial access and practical protection is one of the survey’s clearest findings. 88.2% were classified as formally financially included, but 45.3% scored low on the report’s measure of welfare portability and social protection. Only 1.6% met its combined criteria for adequate healthcare access and financial protection; that figure should not be read as the share with any healthcare access.
Language and information compound these gaps. 81.3% reported communication barriers, while 79.6% reported language or cultural difficulties—obstacles that can affect dealings with employers, health services and welfare offices.
Risks Differ by Sector, Gender and Destination
The report’s Multidimensional Precarity Index brings together seven areas, including work, housing, healthcare and welfare access. Scrap-collection workers in Karnataka recorded particularly high cumulative precarity; 56.3% of the surveyed workers in that sector reported a workplace accident in the preceding year. Across the sample, women earned an estimated ₹3,313 less per month than men after accounting for other measured factors.
Karnataka recorded a higher average precarity score than Kerala or Tamil Nadu. That is a signal for closer investigation, not a like-for-like ranking of state policy performance: the survey deliberately included a different specialist sector in each state, and its selected workers do not represent all interstate migrants.
Worker Mobility Calls for Cooperation Across States
82.0% of respondents were classified as circular migrants, and recruitment most often ran through friends and relatives rather than formal intermediaries. The report therefore recommends cooperation along specific migration routes between origin and destination states. Its proposals include updating workers’ details as they move, making welfare and health services usable across locations, providing multilingual assistance, and directing labour inspections towards high-risk work.
Policy Relevance
The survey exposes a mismatch between mobile workers and services organised around a fixed employer or place of residence. Three responsibilities follow from the evidence:
Who Must Act | Practical Test |
|---|---|
Origin and destination states | Can workers maintain access to entitlements and obtain help when they move or change jobs? |
Destination labour departments | Do inspections and grievance channels reach informal worksites, particularly high-risk sectors such as scrap collection? |
District and local services | Can workers obtain understandable information, healthcare and basic services without relying on an employer to navigate them? |
Because informal contacts are the main route into work, an approach focused only on contractors would miss many surveyed workers. The report’s corridor-based proposal is most useful where states can assign responsibility for services and complaints across the worker’s full journey.
Follow the Full Report Here: South India Interstate Migration Survey 2026 — UNFPA India