Managing international labour migration from India: Policies and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper addresses issues related to the promotion and sustenance of international labour migration from India on the one hand and protection of migrant workers on the other. It reveals that labour migration flows from India since 1990s have not only registered impressive growth in respect of the traditional destinations like the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Gulf countries but also have diversified and expanded to newly emerging migrant destinations in continental Europe, Australasia, East Asia and South-East Asia. The paper observes that a pro-active migration policy framework will further cement these trends. The paper provides a detailed evaluation of the Emigration Act, 1983, the most important policy instrument governing the migration of Indian workers for overseas employment on a contractual basis. It argues that that the Act needs to be reoriented so that it provides a legislative basis for better protection and welfare of the migrants on the one hand and for the active promotion of international labour migration from India on the other. It notes that the Act needs to be modified to check the activities of the unscrupulous agents and to make it harder for agents to cheat Indian workers who are keen on migrating overseas for employment. The grievance redressal system must also be made more effective. It observes that apart from strengthening and reorienting the Emigration Act, the system to monitor its implementation should be strengthened. The paper further highlights the need for international labour migration policy to provide increasing emphasis to promotion and facilitation of external labour flows from India and not be limited only to regulating and protecting functions of the State.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".