Urban Migration

and Urbanization in Nepal

A model based on small and medium-size human settlements
across the mountainous and hilly zones of Nepal, where small and large
valleys constitute ideal islands for the establishment of typical urban
centres, seems to be the best possible option for the country.

By Indra P. Tiwari*

The historic role played by cities and towns as centres of population

concentration with occupations other than primary activities and as hubs for
commerce and business, innovation and diffusion of ideas and technologies, and
decision-making clearly demonstrates that urbanization is synonymous to
development. This perception has prevailed not only among urban dwellers, but
also among rural inhabitants as well as development agents (planners and decision
makers). A high correlation between urbanization and economic development,
measured in terms of per capita gross national product (GNP) further indicates that

* Faculty Expert, Graduate School of Management and Innovation, King Mongkut’s University of
Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, e-mail: tiwari.hsdc@gmail.com or indrap.tiw@kmutt.ac.th.

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 79

urbanization leads to development, particularly until a country reaches a mature
stage of development. Thus, a certain level of urbanization is desirable for the
overall development of a country.
Migration, specifically net in-migration, plays a major role in urbanization,
as it is one of the three contributing factors to urban growth, the other two being
natural growth of population and expansion in an urban area owing to structural
change. Major theories on the origin of cities, including (a) hydraulic theories, or
the concept of surplus; (b) economic theories, or the growth of markets; (c) military
theories, or the growth of defensive strong points; and (d) religious theories, or the
city as temple (Carter, 1983: 3-8), recognize this contribution. A review of urban
development in nineteenth-century western countries reveals that urbanization
took place alongside economic take-off. It was supported by industrial
development in cities and agricultural modernization in rural areas. Migration
contributed to urbanization in two ways: peasants migrated to cities in developed
countries and returnee migrants settled in urban areas of their home country
(Carter, 1983; Bairoch and Goertz, 1986; Fields, 1999).
The objective of this paper is to assess, analyse and explain the structures,
processes and states of migration and urbanization in Nepal. These issues are
complex and need to be understood clearly in order to formulate effective
long-term policies as well as short-term strategies that strengthen the overall
development of the country.

Study method
The study is based on secondary sources of data. For diagnosis, analysis,
description and prognosis of migration and urbanization in Nepal, data are taken
from published sources, largely censuses and surveys. This study is based on a
common definition of migration, in particular the one used in the Population
Census 2001 (Nepal, 2001), which defines a migrant as an individual who has been
away from his residence at least for a six-month period before the Census
enumeration.1
Data are derived at two levels–the district and the municipality 2-from the
Population Census National Report 2001 published by the Central Bureau of
Statistics of Nepal, and Municipality Association of Nepal database (2006). The
2001 census report presents the population by districts and according to four
streams of migration: rural-to-urban, rural-to-rural, urban-to-urban and
urban-to-rural, and also presents data about the population in each urban centre
(municipality). It also provides migration data at the municipality level, including
details on native population, on migration from the same or other districts (from

80 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

Village Development Committees3 and municipalities) as well as on migration
from foreign countries. Further details on municipalities are derived from the
Municipality Association of Nepal database (2006). Urban-centre population data
for past census periods are taken from previous census reports. Logical patterns in
data and information gathered from other secondary sources are used to identify
historical trends of migration to urban areas. To analyse the state of migration and
urbanization, relevant quantitative analyses, such as correlation and regression,
were performed using SPSS.

Migration patterns and development

Migration is the temporary or permanent move of people from a native
locality to a new locality, settlement, region, country or continent. Ravenstein’s
laws of migration state, inter alia, that people move from areas of low
opportunities to areas of high opportunities, where the destinations are determined
by distance, tend to be nearby and favour urban areas (Ravenstein, 1885 and
1889). The determinants of such moves are either demographic (large household
size), geographic (place utility), socio-psychological (the “bright light” effect),
economic, or attitudinal (aspirations to improve one’s economic status and
income) (Bilsborrow, Oberai and Standing, 1984: 14-15).
Theoretically, migration takes place between two locations-rural and
urban-constituting, based on origin and destination, four categories:
rural-to-rural, rural-to-urban, urban-to-urban and urban-to-rural. A number of
explanatory theories exist: the neoclassical macroeconomic theory of migration,
the microeconomic model of migration and the neoeconomics of migration, as
well as theories on the dual labour market, the world system network, institutional
migration and cumulative causation and migration (Lewis, 1954 and 1958; Fei
and Ranis, 1961; Todaro, 1971 and 1976; Messey and others, 1993). These
theories cover supply and demand mechanisms of labour, individual or household
decisions to migrate, the structure of the world market, networks of interpersonal
ties, the institutionalization of labour supply, cumulative causation of movement
or measure of stability, and structure over space and time.
Migration can be categorized as international or internal. International
migrants include settlers, migrant workers, highly skilled workers, students,
asylum-seekers (Skeldon, 1992) and businessmen. Such migrants originate in
both rural and urban areas and their destinations are normally urban centres.
Internal migration tends to be undertaken by students, service holders, farmers,
skilled and unskilled workers, informal petty traders, businessmen, service
providers, politicians, social workers, land-encroachers, displaced persons and

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 81

others. Depending on its time frame, internal migration can be categorized as
permanent, temporary or seasonal. In one ideal development path, people remain
in their respective places of birth. There, they either develop the necessary
physical, economic and social infrastructures to create opportunities and access
the required economic and social services or the Government develops and
provides these foundations for development. In this scenario, settlements or
individual homesteads are scattered evenly across the country over habitable areas
and a new organization of spatial economy emerges. This not only minimizes the
phenomena associated with migration, but also eliminates regional and spatial
disparities and alleviates poverty.
This does not occur in reality. And there are no indications that development
would move in such a direction. Rather, development has taken on a
spatio-temporal dimension. Consequently, only certain areas benefit from an
environment of prosperity and develop into towns and cities to which people
migrate, while other areas remain rural and underdeveloped. Rationales for
moving from one place to another at a particular time depend upon individual
decisions, the spatio-development situations of the places of origin and
destinations and an assessment of the rural and urban development policies
formulated by the Government.
Like in most places, migration in Nepal is a historical phenomenon. It is
driven by oppressive land and labour policies, overpopulation, exceeded carrying
capacity of land resources and a lack of non-farm employment opportunities
(Hitchcock, 1961; Shrestha, 1985; Hrabovszky and Miyan, 1987; Thapa, 1993),
encouraged by available or expected opportunities and facilitated by various
rationales (Goldstein, Ross and Schuler, 1983; Gurung, 1989; Tiwari, 1996).
Migration decisions in Nepal have been based on expected spatial dynamics of the
places of destination. The form, however, has not been that of the rural-to-urban
migration flow hypothesized by Goldstein and others, who suggested that Nepal
was “shifting from a rural hill and mountain society to an urban-subtropical plains
state” (Goldstein, Ross and Schuler, 1983). The Census 2001 data clearly indicate
that Nepal is still one of the least urbanized countries in the world, with only 13.9
per cent of the total population identified as urban (Nepal, 2001). Nepal is also one
of the least developed countries in the world. Similarly, the Census 2001 data
reveal that only 25.5 per cent of all migrants followed the rural-to-urban migration
pattern as compared to the 68.2 per cent who followed a rural-to-rural pattern
(Nepal, 2003).
Urbanization is viewed as one of the most viable processes of development.
However, it has not yet unfolded in Nepal and the state of urbanization shows that

82 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

over the last half century, urbanization has been discouraged and even hampered.
Thus, there is an urgent need for a rapid urbanization process in Nepal. Based on
observations of development in Nepal, sluggish migration to urban areas and slow
urbanization, the following research assumptions were formulated:
1. Migration and urbanization tend to be perceived as negative phenomena,
and the wrong approach to development;
2. Urban development can be an engine of growth and development;
3. The Government of Nepal has discouraged and restrained migration to
urban areas and left processes of urban migration and urbanization largely to
the spontaneous response of population movements and adjustments;
4. The low level of urbanization of Nepal is partly the result of sluggish
migration to urban centres;
5. Migration phenomena in Nepal compel us to revisit (a) the mode of
migration described by Lewis and by Fei and Ranis, according the Todaro
model of migration, according to which labourers migrate from the rural
labour-surplus market of the traditional subsistence economy to the modern
commercial sector in urban centres, which maintains equilibrium in the
supply and demand of labour in a situation of geographic differences; and (b)
the Todaro model of migration according to which rural labourers migrate to
urban areas expecting to find employment in the modern industrial and
services sectors and a higher income;
6. The absence of a comprehensive national human settlements policy,
particularly an urbanization policy, has prevented the promotion, facilitation
and management of migration and urbanization in Nepal;
7. Migration and urbanization are recognized in Nepal as contributors
to economic growth and overall development, but at a much lower importance
level than that accorded to them in the globalizing world.

Nature and trends of migration in Nepal

Permanent immigration to Nepal started with the expansion of the Hindu
civilization some 1,000 years ago, followed by a military conquest and migration
(Caplan, 1970:1). During the twelfth century, Brahmans and Rajputs (Chhetri), the
high caste and socially advantaged Hindu segment of the population, were
dislodged by the Muslims invading Western India and migrated to Western Nepal
(Bista, 1972:2). Unpublished pedigrees of Brahman and Chhetri families record
facts of short-distance migrations as a result of marriage and priesthood,

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 83

institutions through which migrants were able to obtain housing and lands for
permanent settlement. A major migration influence in Nepal’s modern history was
an eighteenth-century royal order to collect revenue: trusted collectors were sent to
various centres, and were given a parcel of tax-free land as salary or remuneration,
in what was known as the birta system (Regmi, 1988).
A second wave of migration in Nepal took the form of emigration-people
leaving one environment, region or country to settle in another. It picked up during the
unification of Nepal, some 240 years ago. At that time, migrants tended to be
members of the royal dynasty, its priestly advisors and subordinate clans, or members
of two ethnic communities-Gurung and Magar (fighters also collectively known as
Gurkhas). The clans and the Gurkha were heavily involved in military services
(Bista, 1972). Two types of emigration were observed: permanent (among the ruling
class) and temporary (among the service class–military servicemen and ordinary civil
servants). After the establishment of Kathmandu as the capital of unified Nepal in
1768 and the unification of principalities, the business community got involved in the
process and migrated along with the ruling families and civil servants to the various
newly established administrative centres and petty-trade nodal points along major
trail routes. The majority of business migrants were from Bhaktapur, the third largest
town, followed by those from Lalitpur–at that time the largest town in the Kathmandu
Valley. This migration was permanent, and voluntary and driven by opportunities. It
is notable that the destinations were essentially towns and market centres–the lower
order centres in the hierarchy of cities and central places.
Emigration outside the country started after the Anglo-Nepalese war of
1814-1816, when the British India Government enlisted 3,000 Nepalese soldiers
from among the prisoners of war and founded the first Gurkha Battalion of the
British Indian Army. Some of the Nepalese army officers who strongly disagreed
with the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli joined the army of Punjab, a strong principality in
Western India. From that time onwards, serving foreign armies became a common
occupation for Nepalese, along with working in public and private sectors. The
high, regular pay and the provision of a pension attracted Nepalese hill people to
join the ranks of the British Indian Army, and gave them a prominent
socio-economic standing among the hill communities. Nepalese men continued to
join the British Indian Army, moving with their families to the settlements
established initially for the Gurkhas in the hilly areas of Northern India.
Thus began the temporary emigration of young males, particularly those from
the ethnic hill communities who had had the opportunity to find secure and
prestigious employment overseas after the Sipahi Mutiny of India in 1857. As a
reward for the generous assistance that Nepal had extended to the British Indian

84 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

Government, a large number of ethnic community Nepalese from the hill and
mountainous zones were recruited into Gurkha regiments of the British Army.
Expansion of the British India regime and its contribution to industrial development
in India opened new opportunities for Nepalese migrants, particularly those from
upper caste communities who were not qualified for the army. This type of migration
was also motivated by the permanent nature of employment in service sectors that
usually offered high earning potential. All returnees, regardless of which type of
employment they had engaged in abroad, opted to settle in their places of origin,
where the rest of their family continued to live and work as rural farmers.
Nepalese nationals today serve in many countries as security guards. The
recruitment of Gurkhas continued after the independence of India in both the British
and Indian Armies. Opportunities to enrol in the British Army gradually declined and
began to trickle off in 1991. More people began searching for private sector jobs in
Australia, the European Union, India, Japan, Malaysia, Persian Gulf States, the
Republic of Korea and the United States of America, as population pressure on hill
resources increased and Maoist insurgency conflicts in rural Nepalese areas escalated.
Out-migration further increased when new opportunities in non-agricultural activities
failed to materialize in the spontaneously developed small market centres;
employment in a foreign country became even more attractive to rural citizens both
financially and psychologically.
Throughout history, the rural population had been stagnant in terms of
occupational mobility, although the location of settlements continually changed.
Depending on the land fertility, availability of water and common grazing lands,
collection of fodder and suitability of settlement, people-particularly those with
previous migration experience-frequently migrated again, both horizontally (within
the same ecological zone) and vertically (across different ecological zones).4 Hence, a
rural-to-rural migration took place spontaneously as people adjusted to the
environment and sought new opportunities while trying to avoid natural calamities
and conflicts. When it started, the destination of such migration was Assam (India),
reached through Burma5; after 1949 it was limited to the eastern part of India. This
process was further encouraged by spontaneous migration and planned rural
resettlement programmes in Nepal. The planned programmes were launched when
forest lands were gifted to migrants in the terai of the Rapti Valley, facilitated by the
malaria eradication programme in the 1950s. Those programmes, which continue
today on a small scale in the plains zone of far western Nepal, attracted rural migrants
to new rural settings. The destinations within the country itself appear more attractive
than those in India, and thus rural-to-rural migration has remained a dominant
phenomenon in Nepal (Tiwari, 1996).

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 85

 Table 1. Regional distribution of migration streams, 2001
Rural-to-urban Urban-to-urban Rural-to-rural Urban-to-rural
Total migration
migration migration migration migration
Region
Mi- Per- Mi- Per- Mi- Per- Mi- Per- Mi- Per-
grants centage grants centage grants centage grants centage grants centage

Nepal 2,926,849 100.0 746,285 25.5 81,335 2.8 1,997,847 68.2 101,382 3.5

Regional distribution
Eastern 718,911 24.6 132,285 18.4 9,537 1.3 553,930 77.1 23,159 3.2
Central 1,074,086 36.7 409,780 38.2 59,346 5.5 565,663 52.7 39,297 3.7
Western 534,572 18.3 106,148 19.9 4,425 0.8 405,314 75.8 18,685 3.5
Mid-western 268,965 9.2 36,587 13.6 2,456 0.9 220,025 81.8 9,897 3.7
Far-western 327,288 11.2 61,485 18.8 2,571 0.8 252,888 77.3 10,344 3.2

Ecological distribution
Mountain 41,363 1.4 2,150 5.2 188 0.5 36,701 88.7 2,324 5.6
Hill 433,125 14.8 74,920 17.3 7,844 1.8 325,249 75.1 25,112 5.8
Plains 1,997,014 68.2 363,762 18.2 25,729 1.3 1,541,156 77.2 66,367 3.3
Kathmandu 455,347 15.6 305,453 67.1 47,574 10.4 94,741 20.8 7,579 1.7
Valley

Given the internal migration trends worldwide, one would expect the
predominant form to be rural-to-urban followed by urban-to-urban, then
rural-to-rural and finally urban-to-rural. However, in Nepal rural-to-rural
migration alone constituted 68.2 per cent of total internal migration at 2001, while
the rural destination migration stream (combined rural-to-rural and urban-to-rural)
constituted 71.7 per cent of total internal migration (see table 1). This was
characterized by short- and long-distance inter-ecological patterns of migration in
which short-distance movements from higher to lower elevations (vertical
migration) were predominant, followed by horizontal (intra-ecological)
movements and, to a lesser extent, inter-district movements (Gurung, 1989).
Short-distance movements were mostly from the ridge and spur settlements (gaun)
in the hill or mountain ecological zones to farmlands within the zone but at a lower
elevation (bensi), which have since emerged as valley settlements or to the nearest
road (Tiwari, 1996). Long-distance migrants were predominantly from hilly and
mountainous areas, while their destinations were places in the terai (Gurung,
1984). Although no significantly higher opportunities were gained in
short-distance destinations, this type of migration prevails, confirming the friction
of distance in migration theory (Tiwari, 1996).

86 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

 Refuting the assumption that rural-to-urban migration would be the largest
phenomenon in a predominantly rural society like Nepal, rural-to-urban migrants
represented only 25.5 per cent of internal migration. Although urban-to-urban
migration is expected to follow rural-to-urban movements in the first phase of
urbanization and development, urban-to-urban migrants constituted only 2.8 per
cent of the total number of migrants. In terms of regional patterns, only the central
region has higher proportions of rural-to-urban and urban-to-urban migration
than those reflected nationally. Ecological patterns of migration follow those of
regional migration, showing a significantly higher share of rural-to-urban and
urban-to-urban migration in the Kathmandu Valley (see table 1). The regional
distribution of origin and destination of migration follows the general pattern of
the regional distribution of migration streams. However, in the latter case, the
percentage share is calculated across regions. The central region clearly
dominates in all migration streams, accounting for more than 50 per cent of
movements with urban origins and urban destinations. However, when viewed in
terms of ecological zones, the plains zone accounts for more than 50 per cent of
migration in all streams except urban destinations, where it represents just under
50 per cent (table 2).

Table 2. Regional distribution of origin and destination of migration, 2001

Rural origin Rural destination Urban origin Urban destination
Region
Mi- Per- Mi- Per- Mi- Per- Mi- Per-
grants centage grants centage grants centage grants centage

Nepal 2,744,132 100.0 2,099,229 100.0 182,717 100.0 827,620 100.0

Regional distribution
Eastern 686,215 25.0 577,089 27.5 32,696 17.9 141,822 17.1

Central 975,443 35.5 604,962 28.8 98,643 54.0 469,426 56.7

Western 511,462 18.6 423,999 20.2 26,110 14.3 113,573 13.7

Mid-western 256,639 9.4 229,949 11.0 12,353 6.8 39,043 4.7

Far-western 314,373 11.5 263,232 12.5 12,915 7.1 64,056 7.7

Ecological distribution
Mountain 38,851 1.4 39,025 1.9 2,512 1.4 2,338 0.3

Hill 400,169 14.6 350,361 16.7 32,956 18.0 82,764 10.0

Plains 1,904,918 69.4 1,607,523 76.6 92,096 50.4 389,491 47.1

Kathmandu Valley 400,194 14.6 102,320 4.9 55,153 30.2 353,027 42.7

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 87

 Nature and trends of urbanization in Nepal
Urbanization over the past five decades in Nepal has been extremely slow.
In 2001, Nepal was ranked the fourth least urbanized country in the world, just
ahead of Rwanda, Bhutan and Burundi. The status of urban and rural populations
from 1952 to 2001 and thus urbanization trends for this period are shown in table
3. The urban population of Nepal increased from 2.9 per cent in 1952/1954 to
13.9 per cent in 2001. This share of urban population is substantially lower than
the world average of 55 per cent and the Asian average of 42.6 per cent; the
average urban population among countries of the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is 22.8 per cent (UNDP, 2003).
Table 3. Status of urban and rural population in Nepal, 1952/1954 -2001
Population as of census year
Region
1952/1954 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Urban
Absolute 238,275 336,222 461,938 956,721 1,695,719 3,227,897
Percentage 2.9 3.6 4.0 6.4 9.2 13.9
Rural
Absolute 8,018,350 9,076 ,774 11,139,045 14,066,188 16,795,378 19,923,544
Percentage 97.1 96.4 96.0 93.6 90.8 86.1
Total
Absolute 8,256,625 9,412,996 11,555,983 15,022,839 18,491,097 23,151,423
Percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sources: Central Bureau of Statistics, 1995 and 2003.

Over the past 50 years, the population growth rate in Nepal has been uneven.
It increased from 1.54 per cent per annum in 1952 to 2.66 per cent in the
1971-1981 inter-census period. The growth rate declined during 1981 and 1991,
and increased again during the 1991-2001 inter-census period. The growth rate of
the rural population has been declining since the 1971-1981 period, although total
rural population as such has not yet started declining. Urban growth rate patterns
have been similar with highs and lows. During the last inter-census period, i.e.
1991-2001, the annual growth rate observed stood at 6.65 per cent per annum.
However, urbanization in Nepal has not been a one-dimensional spatial
population growth phenomenon, as the total rural population is still increasing and
the take-off stage of urbanization has not been completed. Interestingly, the
growth rate at present remains below the linear and exponential growth trends (see
figure 1).

88 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

 Figure 1. Growth rate of urban, rural and total population in Nepal,
1952/1954 -2001

Gr owth rate (Percentage)

0
1952/54 - 1961 1961 - 1971 1971 - 1981 1981 - 1991 1991 - 2001

Urban Rural Total Linear (Urban) Exponentia l. (Urban)

Although the first two were designated in 1918, by 1953 there were still only 10
urban centres in Nepal. Now, with the most recent designation dating back to 1997,
there are 58 urban centres (known as municipalities). Basic criteria for defining a
municipality or urban area include the presence of a cluster of 10,000 inhabitants and
a well-developed market. Urban centres were designated in 12 different phases and
announced in 26 different issues of the Nepal Gazette, which provides them the status
of municipality. Generally, the older the urban centre, the larger its size, as the
correlation coefficient of population size and date of urban establishment is derived at
0.616. As their size, urban functions and level of revenue collection increase, they are
designated as sub-metropolitan and metropolitan centres.
At present, urban areas in Nepal spread across 3,276 km2 but cover only 2.2 per
cent of the total area of the country. The smallest urban area covers 5.6 km2 while the
largest spreads across 319.9 km2. The average size of an urban centre is 56.5 km2. The
mean population in urban centres in Nepal is 55,477. Densities in urban areas range
from 132 to 13,586 persons per km2, with 1,752 as the mean (see figure 2).
Another parameter for analysing urbanization is urban primacy, which focuses
on the degree of concentration of the population in one city. Primacy is normally
measured with the four-city index.6 In large countries such as India and China,
primacy does not exist, as no urban centre is exceptionally larger than the second,

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 89

third and fourth largest cities. In Nepal, Kathmandu has been identified as the primate
city, with an index of 1.38.7 It is a high primacy index value that has been gradually
increasing: it was 1.03 in 1961, 1.04 in 1971, 1.05 in 1981 and 1.25 in 1991. Such a
trend was observed during the golden period of economic prosperity in Japan, with
the highest primacy recorded in 1960, as well as during the economic take-off of
Thailand, with the highest primacy of Bangkok observed in 1975. Bangkok reached a
maximum of 60 per cent of the total urban population, being 50 times bigger than the
second largest city, Chiang Mai.

Figure 2. Urban population, urban area and number of urban centres in

Nepal, 1952/1954 -2001

3500 70
3000 60

No. of urban centres

Population & Area

2500 50
2000 40
1500 30
1000 20
500 10
0 0
1952/54 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Urban population (000) Urban rea sq m) a ( k

Number f ban entreso ur c Expon. (Urban area (sq km))

Regional pattern of urbanization

The regional development policy introduced in Nepal during the Fourth Plan
(1970-1975) adopted the urban-industrial growth pole model which, by default,
designated four cities as regional centres and 15 urban centres and market towns as
growth centres (Nepal, 1970). It also covered the three ecological zones of plains, hill
and mountain. Meanwhile, other growth centres formed during the natural course of
urbanization. The regional distribution of urbanization, however, has not followed the
general distribution of national population (see table 4). The central region, which has
just over one third of the total population, is actually home to almost half of the total
urban population, while the mid-western region, which has 13 per cent of the total
population, is home to only 7.2 per cent of the total urban population. The same two
regions deviate greatly from the national urban population proportion of 13.9 per
cent: the central region is the most urbanized, while the mid-west is the least
urbanized. At the same time, even the most urbanized region of Nepal, i.e. the central

90 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

region (20.0 per cent urban population) is not only less urbanized than the Asian
average of 22.8 per cent, but it is also the least urbanized region of any country in
Asia, except for Bhutan and the Lao people’s Democratic Republic.
Table 4. Regional distribution of urban population
in relation to total population, 2001
Total population Urban population
Number of
Region Per- urban centres/ Percentage
Population municipalities Population
centage Total Region

Eastern 5,344,476 23.09 14 624,610 19.4 11.5

Central 8,031,629 34.69 20 1,605,264 49.7 20.0
Western 4,571,013 19.74 12 520,844 16.1 11.4
Mid-western 3,012,975 13.01 6 231,375 7.2 7.7
Far-Western 2,191,330 9.47 6 245,804 7.6 11.2

Total 23,151,423 100.0 58 3,227,897 100.0 13.9

The urban primacy indices for the regions range from 0.47 for the mid-western
region to 0.92 for the far-western region, excluding the central region (1.84). There is
clearly no urban primacy situation on a regional basis in Nepal, except for the central
region, where the location of the national capital has created a strong regional urban
primacy (see table 5).
Table 5. Largest urban centre and urban primacy measured
by the four-city size index, 2001
Largest urban centre Four-city size
Region
Name Population (2001) index

Eastern Biratnagar 166,674 0.83

Central Kathmandu 671,846 1.84
Western Pokhara 156,312 0.92
Mid-western Nepalgunj 57,535 0.47
Far-western Mahendranagar 80,839 0.63
Nepal Kathmandu 671,846 1.38

Given the unique physiography of the country, it is equally important to

analyze the distribution of urbanization in relation to ecological zones. In terms of
distribution by ecological zone, more than 50 per cent of the total population has

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 91

settled in the plains (terai) zone, but the ecological distribution of urbanization is
highly concentrated in the Kathmandu Valley. The combined urban population
share (21 per cent) of the difficult mountainous and hilly zone is smaller than the
two zones’ combined 40-per-cent share of the total population (see table 6). The
plains zone, which has the majority of the total population, also reflects an almost
equivalent proportion of urban population. All regional headquarters, except
Kathmandu in the Kathmandu Valley, are located in the hill zone. However, the
largest cities of three regions (eastern, mid-western and far-western) are located in
the plains zone; only that of the western region is not.
Table 6. Ecological distribution of urban population
in relation to total population, 2001
Total population Number of Urban population
urban
Zone Percentage
Population Percentage centres/muni- Population
cipalities Total Region

Mountain 1,382,002 5.97 2 43,705 1.35 3.16

Hill 7,876,654 34.02 20 632,182 19.58 8.03
Plains 12,247,676 52.90 31 1,556,044 48.21 12.70
Kathmandu Valley 1,645,091 7.11 5 995,966 30.85 60.54

Total 23,151,423 100.00 58 3,227,897 100.00 13.90

An analysis of the urbanization at a lower-order level -the district- shows

that only 43 of 75 districts in Nepal are urbanized (having at least one urban
centre) while 32 districts have no urban centre. The urban population in 16
urbanized districts represents less than 10 per cent of the total district population.
In 9 districts the proportion is above 10 per cent but below the national average of
13.9 per cent, in 10 it is above the national average and below 20 per cent, in 5 it is
between 20 and 50 per cent, and the remaining 3 each house more than 50 per cent
of the district’s total population in urban settings (see table 7), including the
capital district, which has an urban population of 66 per cent. In terms of area size,
the 32 districts with no urban centre-exclusively rural districts-cover 50.3 per
cent of the total area of the country, all in mountainous or hilly zones. In these
districts, 21.3 per cent of the total district population is not served by any
convenient urban centre. By contrast, almost one third of the urbanization extends
through only three districts, which occupy a mere 1.7 per cent of the district areas
and house only 7.3 per cent of the total national population (see table 7).

92 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

 Table 7. Status of urbanization in relation to
district area and population, 2001
Total area Total population Urban population
Status of
Number of
urbanization Percent- Popu- Percent- Popu- Percentage
districts Area
(percentage) age lation age lation Total District

0 32 73,972 50.3 4,926,844 21.3 0 0.0 0.0

0-10.0 16 25,186 17.1 6,652,745 28.7 400,500 12.4 0.6
10.1-14.0 9 18,130 12.3 2,745,010 11.9 323,762 10.0 11.8
14.1-20.0 10 20,539 14.0 4,828,440 20.8 829,791 25.7 17.2
20.1-50.0 5 6,823 4.6 2,310,584 10.0 643,170 19.9 27.8
Above 50 3 2,531 1.7 1,687,833 7.3 1,030,656 32.0 61.1
Total 75 147,181 100.0 23,151,423 100.0 3,227,897 100.0 13.9

Migration-urbanization relationship
It can be assumed that the destinations of migration flows in developing
countries are urban areas as the process of development and urbanization tend to
go side-by-side. The previous section described a strong spontaneous
out-migration from rural areas in Nepal. However, the destination was not urban
areas, as would have been expected. This contradicted the Todaro model of
migration, according to which rural labourers migrate from rural villages to urban
centres, usually expecting to find a better-paid job in the modern sector. This
pattern also suggested that the modern urban sector in Nepal did not develop the
ability to attract the rural labour force and maintain the equilibrium in labour
supply and demand theorized by Lewis (1954) and Fei and Ranis (1961).
To analyse the migration pattern by district (observing the relationship among
such major variables as population, district size, migration streams, urban and rural
origin and destination of migration), a correlation coefficient among variables was
calculated (see table 8). From this analysis, it is clear that large districts have a
negative correlation with all migration typologies except that of urban origin of
migration. However, the relationship is weak and only a few correlations are
statistically significant. By contrast, the size of the population by district and
migration attributes (nature, typologies, origins and destinations) as well as the
migration attributes themselves have statistically significant positive correlations. The
only less significant correlations are those of temporary migration with various
migration attributes. However, it is clear that the migrant population has a significant
negative correlation with the size of the population of a district, which also has the
strongest correlation among the various migration attributes.

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 93

 Table 8. Correlation matrix of district-level migration situation
in Nepal, 2001
Rural- Urban- Rural- Urban-
Tempo- Num-
to- to- to- to- Urban Rural
Popu- In-mi- rary Urban Rural ber of
urban urban rural rural desti- desti-
lation gration migra- origin origin urban
migra- migra- migra- migra nation nation
tion centres
tion tion tion tion

Area -0.358* -0.195 -0.223 -0.198 -0.242* -0.119 -0.156 0.186 -0.262* -0.204 -0.122 -0.252*
Population 0.817* 0.320* 0.599* 0.512* 0.758* 0.594* 0.818* 0.654* 0.593* 0.759* 0.676*
In- 0.272* 0.826* 0.697* 0.846* 0.655* 0.999* 0.833* 0.816* 0.846* 0.636*
migration
Temporary 0.178 0.093 0.285* 0.121 0.281* 0.124 0.169 0.281* 0.261*
migration
Rural-to- 0.947* 0.400* 0.313* 0.807* 0.916* 0.999* 0.400* 0.426*
urban
migration
Urban-to- 0.228* 0.237* 0.667* 0.932* 0.958* 0.231* 0.34*
urban
migration
Rural-to- 0.745* 0.864* 0.471* 0.382* 1.000* 0.623*
rural
migration
Urban-to- 0.652* 0.574* 0.306* 0.766* 0.683*
rural
migration
Urban 0.807* 0.795* 0.864* 0.635*
origin
Urban 0.922* 0.481* 0.528*
destination
Rural 0.383* 0.416*
origin
Rural 0.633*
destination

The 2001 Census showed that out of the 3,227,897 people making up the
total urban population, 2,257,392 (69.9 per cent) were born in the district they
were living, while the remaining 30.1 per cent were born elsewhere. As expected,
the majority of migrants from outside the district were from rural areas in other
districts (22.7 per cent), followed by those born in a foreign country (4.4 per cent)
and those who had migrated from urban centres in other districts (2.5 per cent).
The general migration trends and the migration attributes of urban population
have shown strong correlations between urban population and origin of birth and
origin of migration streams (see table 9). It is clear from this analysis that the larger the
urban centres, the larger the volume of migrant population from elsewhere.

94 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

 Table 9. Relationship between general migration trends and
migration attributes of urban population, 2001
Born in
or mi- Migrated Migrated Migrated Popula-
Total Native grated from from tion
urban popula- from from absent
popula- other other foreign from
tion the district district country
tion same (rural) (urban) house-
holds
district
Area (km2) 0.035 0.038 0.030 0.065 -0.052 -0.033 0.104
Total urban population 1.000* 0.994* 0.983* 0.963* 0.870* 0.851*
Native population 0.993* 0.984* 0.966* 0.858* 0.854*
Born in or migrated from
0.959* 0.951* 0.876* 0.833*
the same district
Migrated from other
0.954* 0.814* 0.869*
district (rural)
Migrated from other
0.775* 0.803*
district (urban)
Migrated from foreign
0.674*
country
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Figure 3. Level of in-migration and location of urban centres in Nepal

A

FAR WESTERN REGION

C
I

Humla
Darchula
D

Bajhang
MID-WESTERN REGION

Baitadi
Mugu
H
N
N

Bajura
Dipayal
Dadeldhura Km 40 0 40 80 120Km
I

Doti Kalikot Jumla

Achham Dolpa
Mahendra
Nagar Dailekh Mustang WESTERN REGION
Kanchanpur Jajarkot
Kailali
Dhangdhi Rukum
I
Manang
Surkhet
Surkhet
I Bardia Salyan
Rolpa
Myagdi
Kaski
Baglung PokharaLamjung Gorkha CENTRAL REGION N
Parbat
Banke
Nepalgunj
Pyuthan Gulmi
Rasuwa A
INDEX Dang Syangja EASTERN REGION
Tanahun Nuwakot Sindhupalchok
Arghakhanchi
Capital Palpa DhadingKathmandu Dolkha
1 3 Sankhuwasabha
I

Kapilvastu Nawalparasi
Regional centre Rupandehi
Kabhre
Chitwan Makwanpur 2 Solukhumbu Taplejung
District headquarters (municipality) Ramechhap
N
N

District headquarters (village centre) Sindhuli

Okhaldhunga
Parsa Bhojpur
Municipality town BurgurjBara Khotang
TehrathumPanchthar
D

Rautahat
Highways Level of in-migration Sarlahi
Dhankuta
Dhanusha Dhankuta
Major feeder roads Very high, > 20 per cent Udayapur Ilam
Regional boundary High, 10-20 per cent D Mahottari JanakpurSiraha
I

Saptari Sunsari Jhapa

Morang
District boundary Medium, 5-10 per cent 1-Kathmandu
2-Lalitpur Rajbiraj Biratnagar
I
A

Indian rail head Low, < 5 per cent 3-Bhaktapur

A

Note: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official
endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 95

 The relationship between the above-mentioned migration and urbanization is
depicted in figure 3, which reflects a high level of in-migration in districts that
have urban areas. Except for four districts, all districts with very low migration
level have no urban centres. In other words, districts without urban centres tend to
be unattractive to in-migrants. The Kathmandu Valley and virtually all the terai
zone districts have high to very high levels of in-migration; there, more than 10 per
cent of the population are migrants. Most of the migration is short-distance and/or
rural-to-rural. Almost 3 million people migrated from their rural or urban places of
settlements during the last 10 years, while fewer than 1 million migrated to urban
areas. Since many of the district headquarters still have not qualified as
municipalities, migration to these district headquarters remains categorized as
rural-to-rural. Nevertheless, market centres in those districts have not succeeded in
attracting the rural population, even with economic incentives.

Discussion of results, causes and consequences

Urban development in Nepal remains a spontaneous process. The positive
aspects of cities and towns as engines of economic growth in the context of national
development have not been adequately appreciated by policymakers, planners,
academics and development partners. Rather, the general reaction of development
agents to a spatial approach to development is that Nepal is a predominantly rural
society, and that urbanization could drain resources from rural areas to urban
centres. In many instances, the populist emphasis on rural and agricultural
development as the only strategy has caused development agents to depict
urbanization as the wrong path to development, highlighting the negative aspects
of urbanity. Thus, due attention to urbanization has never been part of the planned
development of Nepal. The Preliminary Report on Regional Development Areas in
Nepal (Okada, 1970) and related documents, including the Regional Development
Planning for Nepal (Gurung, 1969) and the introduction of regional development
planning in Appendix III: Regional Development Planning of the Fourth Plan
(1970-1975) (Nepal, 1970) do not analyse urbanization nor do they highlight
urbanization policy matters. Such strategic documents did not show any clear
national urbanization or urban development policy until the Seventh Plan
(1985-1990), which introduced urbanization and habitation policy, including
regional development policy (Nepal, 1985).
The urbanization policy included in the Seventh Plan was actually
supplementary to a plan aimed at strengthening rural development. The policy
was not substantiated by any urbanization strategy, sector plan or action plan.
Thus, the questions of where and how to develop urban centres were not

96 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

answered and urbanization was bound to develop spontaneously. The Eighth
Plan (1992-1997) did not formulate any urbanization policy separately either.
Rather, it incorporated urbanization policy issues under the regional policy
framework (only two points mentioned urbanization policy). These two points
outlined steps that should be taken to establish (a) urban centres along the
east-west highway and north-south corridors and (b) small-town development
to support rural development (Nepal, 1992). A housing and urban
development sector programme was prepared during the Eighth Plan, which
mentioned market-centre development in seven areas as well as the study of 29
district headquarters for the development of service centres.
Despite some discussions on initiatives to promote small and
medium-sized towns in Nepal, no workable urbanization policy was laid out
until the Ninth Plan (1997-2002). This Plan integrated urbanization policy into
regional policy, in a programme “to support market-oriented urban systems in
the course of regional development”. The plan also had sector activities and
presented some ideas on urban development, notably by preparing physical
plans for newly and soon-to-be designated urban centres (Nepal, 1997).
The Tenth Plan (2002-2007) includes a housing and urban development
sector plan (Nepal, 2003). However, like earlier plans, it has not specified any
systematic and comprehensive urbanization policy. It includes plans on urban
development, particularly preparation of the town plan, establishment of
infrastructure, urban services and others. Yet there is no national urbanization
policy as such, nor any urban migration policy to deal with or manage migrants
in urban areas.
This study demonstrates that population in Nepal is actually highly
mobile. Yet the proportion of migration to urban centres is smaller than
expected, which departs from the Lewis, Fei and Ranis, and Todaro models of
migration. It also departs from the European urbanization pattern, which was
characterized by equal numbers of migrants from rural areas and returnees
from abroad. In the first wave of the great European migration, the rural
population first migrated to large cities abroad and later settled in urban areas
in home countries (Bairoch and Goertz, 1986). Similarly, Nepalese people
migrated to India and other countries-usually to large cities. However,
regardless of the area they were from, rural areas were the main
return-migration destinations (Tiwari, 1996). Urban centres in Nepal are not
economically strong, since most are petty trading centres and do not fulfil the
manufacturing or basic functions of a urban centre.

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 97

 Unlike in many developing countries, such as the Philippines and Sri Lanka, the
migrant population in Nepal is generally not educated, skilled or even semi-skilled.
Those who migrated out in search of opportunities were searching for land-based
options; their destinations were the fertile plain areas in the south. The major
opportunities for those who temporarily migrated to urban areas were salaried jobs in
urban centres in Nepal, in the military and civil services in India, and in the military
service in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Until recently,
most of those who had migrated abroad returned to their home villages or migrated to
new rural environments where the rest of their family lived. A breakthrough in this
trend has been observed as numerous returnee migrants have opted to settle down in
urban or market centres near their home villages. Migration from rural areas to district
headquarters and larger urban centres is also intensifying, partly because of the rising
number of conflicts in rural areas. This pattern remains to be confirmed, as most
conflict victims are well established in their home village and generally intend to
return when peace resumes.
In most cases, the four major facets of urbanization are commerce,
manufacturing, an occupational shift towards secondary and tertiary sectors and
the politics of nation-building (Fields, 1999). None of those facets developed in
Nepal as expected, but they are not completely absent. For example, there were
some commercial opportunities near the Indian rail-head in the border area of
Nepal, including some manufacturing establishments; there, urban centres have
developed reasonably well. These centres facilitate the export of primary products
such as rice, timber, jute and other products and the import of goods such as
ready-made garments and electronics. More than one third of urban centres in
Nepal currently function as break-of-bulk points, due to their proximity to the
Indian rail-head. Another group of urban centres are located within the terai
districts and directly linked to the border towns of the north-south corridor, up to
the nearby foothills, which are also break-of-bulk points for road transport. In the
central region, a cluster of urban centres has developed around Kathmandu, the
national capital.
Until recently, urban services were not attractive to rural populations.
Neither the national infrastructure nor the provision of economic and social
services were sufficient to encourage this population to migrate to urban centres.
Moreover, the lack of an appropriate national policy has left migration and
urbanization to unfold spontaneously. The resulting urbanization process is not
slower, but it ignores certain areas; for example, the transport network and other
basic infrastructure are deficient throughout the entire northern mountain zone
and most of the hill zone.

98 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

 Task ahead
The strongly significant correlations among population and migration
(particularly urban) attributes allow the author to conclude that migration, along
with economic development, has a significant impact on both general population
adjustment and urbanization. The discussion presented in this paper highlights the
need for migration and rapid urbanization to take place in Nepal in order to boost
the country’s economic development and facilitate population adjustment. Yet a
number of tasks remain.
First, the level of urbanization that would be most suitable for a country like
Nepal should be delineated. This must take into consideration that poorly
urbanized Nepal urgently requires the establishment and rapid expansion of urban
functions particularly in hilly and remote areas, a disintegrated primary
production-based economy and a decentralization of development benefits
through an integrated spatial development strategy.
Second, a comprehensive urbanization policy should be developed, taking
into account migration to urban areas. Examples of rural-to-urban migration and
general urban problems faced by other developing countries highlight the
importance of careful human-settlements planning in fostering equitable
distribution of income and opportunities as well as balanced growth and
development of all economic sectors, both in rural and urban areas. To this end, the
four distinct models of urbanization trends and policies in Japan, Malaysia and
Thailand can be reviewed. All are either developed or heading towards a high level
of development.
Third, in order to prepared for the expected massive influx of migrants to
urban centres a comprehensive national physical plan should be developed to
clearly define the basic functions of these centres as well as of groups of urban
settlements.
Fourth, sources of migrants in rural areas should be identified, in order to
meet the threshold population required for each urban centre in view of its new
functional perspective.
Fifth, the objectives of the national urbanization policy should be balanced
with environmental conservation.
The Republic of Korea presents a very high level of urbanization with large
cities, whereas Japan has a mix of large and small cities. Malaysia is moving
towards a moderate level of urbanization, avoiding a high level of primacy, while
Thailand shows a relatively low level of urbanization with a high level of primacy.

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 99

Given its geographical attributes, Nepal could follow the Japanese pattern; given
its state of economy it could follow a combination of the Malaysian and Thai
urbanization patterns, i.e. avoiding a high level of primacy, maintaining a relatively
low level of urbanization, and basing that urbanization on services and agriculture.
Thus, it is important for the urbanization policy of Nepal to seriously
consider the scattered population distribution across the difficult-to-access hills
and mountainous terrains. It is almost impossible to provide basic services, such as
roads, to all villages, let alone to each household. Providing basic social and
economic services to populations residing in scattered households would be
tremendously expensive. Moreover, many services require a fairly large threshold
population-a threshold the thinly distributed population in the mountainous and
hilly ridges and spurs in Nepal cannot meet. To tackle these challenges and manage
further complications, a model based on small and medium-size human settlements
across the mountainous and hilly zones of Nepal, where small and large valleys
constitute ideal islands for the establishment of typical urban centres, seems to be
the best possible option for the country.

100 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

 Endnotes
1. This definition takes into account lifetime migrants.

2. A municipality is a generic term used for the lowest-level urban (towns and cities)
politico-administrative unit in Nepal and technically refers to metropolitan cities, sub-metropolitan
cities and municipalities.

3. A village development committee is the lowest level rural politico-development structure in Nepal.

4. For the purpose of studies and analyses of economic, social and political developments, Nepal is
divided into three distinct longitudinal geographical divisions : (a) the mountain zone in the north; (b)
the hill zone in the centre; and (c) the plains (or terai) zone in the south, besides the Kathmandu valley.
In literature, these zones are referred to as ecological zones or ecological belts.

5. Burma declared independence in 1948. By 1949, foreigners were not only prevented from
immigrating, they were forcefully expelled from that country. Thereafter the destinations were limited
to the eastern part of India, include present-day Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.

6. The four-city primacy index is computed by dividing the population of the largest city by a combined
population of the second, third and fourth largest cities in the country. If the calculated index value is 1
or more, the first city is considered a primate city; the higher the value, the higher the level of primacy.

7. The four-city primacy index for Nepal was calculated by dividing the population of the largest city
(Kathmandu) by the combined population of the second, third and fourth largest cities (Biratnagar +
Lalitpur + Pokhara): 671,846 / (166,674 + 162,991 + 156,312) = 1.38.

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 101

 References
Bairoch, P. and G. Goertz (1986). “Factors of urbanization in the nineteenth century developed
economies: A descriptive and econometric analysis”, Urban Studies, vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
285-305.

Bilsborrow, R.E., A.S. Oberai and G. Standing (1984). Migration Surveys in Low Income Countries:
Guidelines for Survey and Questionnaire Design (London, Croom Helm).

Bista, D.B. (1972). People of Nepal (Kathmandu, Ratna Pustak Bhandar).

Caplan, L. (1970). Land and Social Change in East Nepal: A Study of Hindu-tribal Relations (Berkeley,
University of California Press).

Carter, H. (1983). An Introduction to Urban Historical Geography (London, Edward Arnold).

Fei, J.H.C. and G. Ranis (1961). “A theory of economic development”, American Economic Review,
vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 533-565.

Fields, G. (1999). “City systems, urban history and economic modernity: Urbanization and the
transition from agrarian to industrial society”, Berkeley Planning Journal, No. 13,
pp.102-128.

Goldstein, M.C., J.L. Ross and S. Schuler (1983). “From a mountain-rural to a plain urban society:
Implications of the 1981 Census”, Mountain Research and Development, vol. 3, No.1, pp.
61-64.

Gurung, H.B. (1969). Regional Development Planning for Nepal (Kathmandu, National Planning
Commission [Nepal].

________ (1984). Nepal: Dimensions of Development, 2nd ed. (Kathmandu, Awarta Press).

________ (1989). Regional Patterns of Migration in Nepal (Honolulu, East-West Population Institute).

Hitchcock, J. T. (1961). “A Nepalese hill village and Indian employment”, Asian Survey, vol. 1, No. 9,
pp. 15-20.

Hrabovszky, J.P. and K. Miyan (1987). “Population growth and land use in Nepal”, Mountain Research
and Development, vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 264-270.

Lewis, A. (1954). “Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour”, The Manchester School,
May 1954, pp. 139-191.

________ (1958). “Unlimited labour: Further notes”, The Manchester School, January 1958, pp. 1-32.

Messey, D.S. and others (1993). “Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal”,
Population and Development Review, vol.19, No. 3, pp. 431-466.

102 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1

Municipality Association of Nepal (MUAN)(2006). MUAN Database. Kathmandu.

Nepal (1970). The Fourth Plan (1970-1975), National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.

________ (1985). The Seventh Plan (1985-1990), National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.

________ (1995). Population Monograph of Nepal, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu.

________ (1997). The Ninth Plan (1997-2002), Kathmandu: National Planning Commission.

________ (2001). Population Census National Report, 2001, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu.

________ (2003a). Population Monograph of Nepal, Volume II, Central Bureau of Statistics,
Kathmandu.

________ (2003b). The Tenth Plan (2002-2007), National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.

Okada, F.E. (1970). Preliminary Report on Regional Development Areas in Nepal (Kathmandu,
National Planning Commission).

Ravenstein, E. (1885). “The laws of migration”, Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. 48, No. 2, pp.
167-235.

________ (1889). “The laws of migration: Second paper”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol.
52, No. 2, pp. 241-305.

Regmi, M.C. (1988). An economic history of Nepal, 1846-1901 (Varanasi, Nath Publishing House).

Shrestha, N.R. (1985). “The political economy of economic underdevelopment and external migration
in Nepal”, Political Geography Quarterly, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 289-306.

Skeldon, R. (1992). “International migration and the ESCAP region: A policy-oriented approach”,
Asia-Pacific Population Journal, vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 3-22.

Thapa, G.B. (1993). “Impact of emigration on mountain watersheds: The Upper Pokhara Valley,
Nepal”, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 417-438.

Tiwari, I.P. (1996). “Impact of migration on rural employment and earnings in the Western
Development Region of Nepal”, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol. 5, No. 4, pp.
417-448.

Todaro, M.P. (1971). “Model of rural-urban migration”, in G.M. Meier and J.E. Rauch (eds.), Leading
Issues in Economic Development (4th ed.), pp.142-147 (New York, Oxford University
Press).

Asia-Pacific Population Journal, April 2008 103

________ (1976). Internal Migration in Developing Countries (Geneva, International Labour
Organization).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2003). Human Development Report 2003 (New
York, Oxford University Press).

104 Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1