 Lyfydeg amser bactewch dim here giving a public lecture because there are so many people who could be giving it but anyway I've been given the task so I'll do the best. I think I've come the shortest distance just from Singapore but I had to get up at 4 o'clock this morning which is 3 o'clock Indonesia time or Jakarta time and it's after lunch as well isn't it. Well so well so yeah we'll see what happens. But what I have to do is talk. Well we've got an hour haven't we. Until quarter past 2. But I wouldn't go past to. I won't go past to. So there will be time for questions. We'll kind of see how it goes. I may rush through bits of it because I want to get through by 2. I know how annoying it is when people go on. The kind of background to this is Mae'r cyfnod yw'r gweithio yw'r cyfnod yn Rhyw Llywodraeth Rhywodraeth. Mae'r cyfnod yn 1982. Mae'r cyfnod yn ystafell, bynnwyd, byddwn yn ei gweithio, dwi'n gweithio ym 10 ym 10. Mae'r cyfnod yn ym 100 o'r strategi. Mae'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yn 1982. Mae'r cyfnod yn 1994. Mae'r cyfnod yn 2008. Mae'r cyfnod yn 1982. Mae'r cyfnod yn ei meddwl iddynau dros d erfolgreichau. Mae'r cyfrifiad yn eich weld yn ysgrifennu i chi, yn y gallu ddechreu am y ddiddordeb hwr. Mae'n ae'r cyfrifiad yn ei ddim yn ei ddim yn ei ddim. Mae'r cyfrifiad yn ei ddim yn ei ddim yn ei ddim. Mae'r cyfrifiad yn erbyn iaith o ddigon i maelod ac i ddweud, mae'r cyfrifiad yn erfyn iaith, a'i fawr ym bod yn gwärddig i , Fy hoedd i ddweudol, mae'r ysgrif siglbyn sydd peth o ddigon i ddim. Mae'r cofio'r byddoedd o'ch cael y blyneu i'w rwycofidio, o'n cael y byddwyd wedi'i ceisio i ddiweddol hefyd i'r meddwl ond hefyd yn cael eu dissolved y byddoedd. Mae'r rhaglenedd yn cael y dyfweld y prosedd ar y cyfueddol i'r fynd George Ddweych. Mae'r cyfeinio'n mynd i gyfu yw ddigonion ar gyfer yr oedd y llif, ar erioedd hyn newydd, ar ei ddisgol sydd bod yn gryf. felly ond mae'n grannu oedd amddereid, ond er mwyn iddyn nhw'n meddwl. Dwi oedd bod yno'r dynner hwylfaenau rhan oedd 89% o gweithno trwm yn gweld cyfarfod cyngor gyda'r dynner hwylfaenau. Rydy'r yma'n rwyf edrych yn rhan o'r gweithio'r ddangos gilyniadol. Yr rhan o'r won rwyf wedi'u gweithio'r dynner, dwi ddim fod o bwrdd eich dynnod gyda'r bwysig, So, ble 81 rhai oedd ymddangos o'r newydd yn 1980 a 1982 hynny yn 2008, yn y gallu gweld ein sgwrdd dros eu meddwl. A, yn 2008, rwy'n gyrraedd 77 rhai o'r newydd. Ond o'r gwrdd erbyn o'r chael ymddangos o'r newydd, mae'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r newydd o'r newydd. Mae'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r clwytaeth, mae'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud yng Nghaerffrwyddon wedi ei gael, yn etyn ni'r hun. Yn yng Nghaerffrwyddon wedi gweld â dwylo hwnnw, mae'r amgylchedd arog nes, gallai'n haes mewn'r amser, Ac mae hynny ei fod yn eistedd yn hynny'n gwir. Mae hynny'n mwy Pars Lord Wieniaeth, xempo y ddyn ni'n cael ei hynny'n cael ei gechwyn. Ac rwy'n bellig i'w ddiogeth ymlaen i'r dwysig. Rwy'n blwysig i'ch meddwl chi'n meddwl hefyd oedd yn bod y dyfod o'i ddau i weithgareddau. Ond mae fyddech chi'n meddwl, fel y set ymlaen i'r byn i'r dyffug iawn, i'r ffordd y ffordd ar y dyfodol. Rwy'n bach i ddatganiaeth ymlaeni Mary Suzana eich papur a'r papur i'r duw sydd i'i gweld o gyfostiolaeth mewn geisir sydd ymlaen. Mae'r bwysig yn gwneud yr hyn wedyn am eu cymdeithas iawn. Fy fryd i flwydd yn rhoi chyflon ymddangos i'w ddweud ymddangos ein angen o'r drafodaeth o gwneud o'r ceisio'r ffodol. Mae'n gweithio hynny'n gweithio beth o gyfnodol ond yn Ymddangos 12 o 16 miliwn fliwyddon yn y pwyllfa ar ôl wrthoedwch yn Ymdannig, mae'n thata 120 miliwn. ac yn Tylen i'r Filippu i'r Llyfrgellau, yn ystod, y llwyddiad cyfnod, ac yn ystod, y gallwn digwydd yn y ddweud gyda'r ddweud yng Nghymru. Ond yna, ydych chi'n dweud y ddweud yng nghymru? Yn y ddweud yw'r Unedig Papers i'r Papers Unedig o'r migraethu yn y Rheiddiad Cymru yn 2009, ac yna ychydig yna, yn yw'r ddweud, i'r ddweud ystod o'r ffyrdd yng Nghymru. Here, it is dwarfed mewn gwirionedd, a sy'n ddim yn y bwysig yng Nghymru yn dyfodol mewn ddeithes o godi, I ymatech ben am ystod yma yn Zentwyth Taelant, rydyn ni wedi eu bajch yn gweld i wyf. The first thing we did when we arrived in this village, we wanted to find out what the population was. Felly, we went to the Utai District, the Census Bureau, and they told us that there were 378 people living in the village. We then went to the Tambon, which is the sub-district, and they said, well actually no, they're not the 425. And then to the health station, and they said, no, there are 1,257 people living in this village. And then we did our own estimate, we reckon there were 3,000. So the disparity between what is recorded and what is actually there can be enormous. The reason why this village is, as it is, is because it's next to an industrial estate. So this is Ban Khokmaeom up here. And this is the industrial estate here, a Utai Thainline factory kind of estate. And what is happening is people of course are being sucked in from all across Thailand and beyond to Ban Khokmaeom, like these young women here, living in dormitories like this one, Horpak, and they are living in the village. They're not kind of of the village, I mean they're residing there. I would say they're not really living there in that sort of sense of really belonging. But that's what explains this 3,000 people and the disparity between that and what the Census Bureau thinks the population is. And that has ramifications. I think a few people have talked about rural depopulation. What's happening is people are leaving these provinces here. And as a result you're getting an inflow of Lao who are filling the labour gap in rural areas of northeast Thailand. And in fact at the moment I'm examining a PhD which is just about this. So the number of Lao who speak the same language almost, they speak Lao, they speak Lao in northeast Thailand as well. They're coming in across the Mekong, usually, well, illicitly, so illegally in theory, but in practice everyone accepts that it happens to fill that labour gap. And you could argue the reason why there's the labour gap is because of land grabbing in northern Laos. So you kind of got a whole series of resonances across mainland Southeast Asia, which you can track from village to village from system to system. So that's the kind of first thing is that how do we get a sense of what is going on in detail. The second thing is something which has cropped up a few times this morning, which is about how we interpret histories. And this is about how migration kind of tracks through time. This was a study, a longitudinal study undertaken again in northeast Thailand in 1989. And what it shows, I'll just quickly explain, these are male householders, these are female, farming and non-farming. So this is the pattern of farm work and non-farm work. And if you look at this graph it seems as though non-farm work, which often involves migration, is a kind of writer passage. These are young unmarried men and women leaving home, probably going to work in places like that industrial estate I showed earlier, maybe becoming domestic workers in Bangkok, or maybe travelling abroad. Then they're coming back, if you like, getting married, having children, settling down and becoming farmers again. So this picture from 1989, these data, kind of indicate what you might think that this is about a writer passage. These are the same village 10 years on, so 11 years on in 2000. And you can kind of see what's happening, the way in which, if you look at this, you might say, well actually there's an era defining process of change going on here, that these young migrants are not coming back, or at least they're staying away for longer. And then looking at this second graph, it kind of raises a whole set of questions about the reproduction of the farm household, how agriculture is going to be sustained, how households are becoming separated over space in the long term and not just in the short term. And I suppose that's what I've found myself doing all the time, is playing kind of explanatory catch-up. You know, I go out into say rural Laos or Vietnam or Thailand and I see one thing and I write papers that no one reads, which might be about how this is a writer passage, and then you go back 10 years later and you think, right okay, something else is going on here, you write something else. So you're always trying to just sort of, at least for someone who was based in the UK until last July, just trying to kind of keep pace with change in places like northeast Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, wherever in Southeast Asia. And in fact these are my data showing something very similar. So this is 1982 and this is 2008, so a similar sort of process. And I know Becky's written on this, but you also see, if you like, female mobility becoming very much more the norm than in 1982. So a sort of opening of the moral envelope of who can move and who can't. And I know Becky's work is even more dramatic, her work on Lampung. What's interesting though is that even when people stay away for years and years, and this is where it's different from Deborah's work on Africa, where she was saying that people don't see themselves as farmers. If you like, they're temporary, you know, even though they may be away for 14 or 13 years, they're still beholden to their rural origins. And I don't know whether that's a difference between, say, Latin America, Africa and the Asian experience. I suspect that there are some important differences there. But this is work from Vietnam that we undertook in 2010. These people who have been in Hanoi for over a decade and still have temporary residence and are not giving up that temporary residence. So they're still maintaining important links back to their places of origin. That of course then means that we have multi-sided households and various people have mentioned that this morning and multi-sided livelihoods. So this sort of thing, where you will have a grandparent looking after grandchildren while the parents of the grandchildren are working away. So it's sort of reworking of the household, of course both in the way it's kind of spatial footprint, but also then in the way that it operates as a social unit. And you'll find grandparents complaining that they can't look after their grandchildren. They don't understand them. And some of the issues, for example, where you've got real frictions within the household as they try to deal with these new household forms. And of course sometimes the change is really dramatic. This is another panel study just to give you an idea of how dramatic it is. So this was from 1981. This is the agriculture and non-agricultural division of income, 4060, and in situate 6040. And this was it in 2002. So you can see how these villages have been reworked both in terms of where income is coming from and where activity is situated. And behind, of course, that is migration. But as I said at the outset, people are not giving up their land. They're still keeping hold of their land. So the village we've been working in for nearly 30 years now, you've still got 85% of a population maintaining control of their land. And that's really different from the agrarian transition as it emerged, say in Western Europe, where the departure of people from rural areas to urban areas usually led, I mean sometimes it was forced so land was dispossessed, people giving up their land. And there's an interesting debate, I mean Gillian Hart on, is Asia an example of accumulation without dispossession, whereas somewhere like Africa and Latin America maybe it's a case of accumulation with dispossession. So people in most countries of East Asia, so South Eastern East Asia, have not lost their land in the way that they have, say in Africa and Latin America. So what we have is kind of capitalist accumulation based on the assumption that people still have their land. So they still have a kind of subsistence base, but that's freeing up labour then to work in the industrial sectors. And in a way, villages then become sustained through absence. This is a picture of Teng Hoa in Vietnam and we are interviewing migrants in Hanoi and then we went back to their places of origin and we turn up in villages and find this sort of thing. So people still have their house, they still have their land but they're not occupied and if the land is used it's farmed by someone else. But in an odd sort of way it's because people are not there that the village still exists. It's because of the kind of cross subsidisation of migration and migrant lives and livelihoods, non-farm income back into the village that allows some people to stay there. Which then that puzzle of how come we could still find 77 of our households was because of this sort of thing. People kept their land, they may not have farmed it. I mean there's been some places like Malaysia, lots of idle land. In Thailand some kind of, I suppose, disintensification of agriculture. And there's a scholar called Deirdre Mackay who writes about remittance landscapes that we can kind of read the landscapes of Asia in the sense that they are shaped by remittances. What crops people grow, how they grow them, how they use mechanisation of production, all those sorts of things can be understood in terms of patterns of remittances. So what happens to farming, a sort of third theme? Well you get a geriatrification of farming. So this was again the study that we've been doing in northeast Thailand. So the average mean age of the farmers was 36 years old in 82 and it's now 55. So you've got a kind of ageing of the farm labour force over time. This was a transplant gang that we came across. And we sort of talked to them. We asked them, you know, how old are you? And they're all in their 60s and 70s. I mean these people shouldn't be transplanting rice. And we said, we're all the young people. And someone said, well they've all gone to Bangkok. And then someone else said, no, no, they're not. They're in the village but they're too lazy to come out here and work. You know that agriculture farming, this sort of really hard transplant work is kind of beneath them. They've attained secondary school education and they haven't left the village but they've kind of left the agricultural workforce. So there was a kind of debate among these farmers about whether youth were completely useless and lazy or whether actually they'd gone off to do something useful in the city. But you wouldn't have seen, I mean back in 1980, you wouldn't have seen this sort of pattern of aged transplant gang. And so I mean I think a lot of the changes you see in agriculture, I've got some of them here, dis-intensification land use changes, cropping idle land mechanisation, all those sorts of things are linked in one way or another to migration. I mean of course I suppose an interesting question is the direction of causality. I mean people like James Scott, his work on Malaysia would probably say that mechanisation has led to migration rather than migration leading to mechanisation. So if you have mechanisation it displaces labour from work. I think in his book he calls the Combine Harviser. He doesn't call it Mesen Makan Garja, the machine that eats work. I think that's what it's called in the village of Seneca, that somehow it takes work away from the landless and the land poor. And as a result they become the disempowered migrants going off to KL or wherever. But other people see it working the other way around. And I suppose the classic case is Japan. I don't know if anyone works in Japan here. But the average size of farm, 1.89 hectares, 85% of farmers are part time. I don't know whether this is an Asian future, whether we'll see this kind of get reproduced elsewhere. The number of farmers between 1960 and 2004 dropped from 12.2 million to 2.2 million. Apparently in 2009, 66,000 people took up farming, but only 1,850 were from non-farming backgrounds. So they got no one kind of entering farming. And the average age of farmers exceeded 65 at the first time in 2010. So it's now around about 65.8. So whether that's going to be the feature of... In many areas just 10% of farmers have a son and daughter willing to take over the farm. So the interesting question is about the reproduction of the farm household over time. And I don't know any Australians here. I mean that programme finds the farmer a wife in that desperate attempt to find someone who's going to marry the Australian farmer, stuck out in the outback. And the same happens in South Korea. So I don't know if we've got any South Koreans here. I had a South Korean postgraduate who translated that he said that he took a photo for me. And apparently it says this, marry a Vietnamese woman innocent and good-natured. And then this one, Vietnamese wives guaranteed never to run away. But amusing at one level, tragic at another, but if you like the movement of Vietnamese women to South Korea to fill the void because male farmers can't find wives, that's the degree to which if you like this question of the reproduction of the farm household is being pushed. Which is this theme. So if we've got this sort of pattern and that question I posed earlier, is this temporary or is it permanent? Is this something that's going to, as people finish work, as they mature they come back to the village, they get married, they settle down, they take up farming. So is that the pattern or is this indicative of a much longer term, more profound, deeper seated household footprint? I think the kind of surprise is that households in I would say in East Asia in general are getting smaller. I mean total fertility rates now in most country, I think Indonesia, I think it's about 2.1, is it 2.2, something like that? Barely replacement. I think in Vietnam and Thailand it's under 2. And yet households are becoming more complex. So they're getting smaller and more complex. So this was the households in 82. Here are the households in 2008. And you can see this dramatic increase in grandchildren being brought up by their grandparents. So the point I made earlier. And so at a kind of conceptual level there's a question about what is the household. I think classically, I don't know if we've got any anthropologists here, but I think a household is a co-residential dwelling unit. And all the households that I've been talking about are not co-residential dwelling units. So do we need to kind of rethink how we understand households and that second question about what's the future going to hold? At the moment I'm working with some colleagues in Konken University on the middle income gap. And what we're doing here is kind of we've notionally divided migrants up into first generation and second generation. So the first generation are essentially the ones who left with primary level education. And they went into low skilled work in manufacturing, domestic work, construction sites, that sort of thing. From the second generation, who have mostly got lower secondary school or above. So this is the kind of distinction between first and second generation. And, of course, the first generation, they left the villages farmers. So men like this, I think I took this about 1990. So they took up this sort of work. And I think if I'd gone up to these two men and asked them, what are you, they would have said they're farmers. That was their kind of elemental positioning, if you like. And these, I showed this picture earlier, these are the migrants, the second generation, the first generation, the second generation, Australia, these are the migrants, the second generation migrants. These men and women, they're not farmers. Often they've never farmed. They don't know how to farm. Because they will have gone through probably nine or 12 years of schooling and immediately their schooling finishes. They will have gone off somewhere else. So that kind of sense of being tied to the land of having the knowledge of farming is not ingrained in them in the way that the two men in the picture behind are. So there's sort of argument that the migrants of the 1980s were surgeoning farmers. Return was always what was going to happen to them. But maybe the migrants of the 2000s, so the last decade or so, are kind of school leavers. We have to think about them as different people. This is the pattern of schooling between the first generation in blue, almost all primary, and then the second generation in, I suppose that's magenta or something like that, isn't it? What's interesting though is that very few of them, this is another puzzle, become permanent migrants. This is a bit tricky because of course if you ask a household well is your son or daughter going to remain permanently? Away permanently? They might say no, no, he, she's going to come back next year, but then it might turn out that they don't. So I know this is sort of hypothetical. But we interviewed or we sourced information on about 150 migrants. And you can see around about 50 had returned by the time we did the survey. Another altogether 120 were expected to return. A small number would marriage migrants, so they'd left because they'd got married to someone somewhere else. And a very small number, just 22, 50% of the total had become permanent migrants. Which is kind of surprise that they're not, despite the fact they don't have farm skills, despite the fact they don't want to go into farming, despite the fact they're educated to secondary level, they're still seen and usually see themselves as temporary movers. And I've been kind of thinking about why this is. And I think it might be, there's some interesting work going on at the moment, mostly in Europe, although it's beginning in Asia, on what's known as precarity. So precarius living. And I think this is becoming increasingly a problem for these migrants. This is a graph of formal against informal sector employment. And you can see this is kind of what, when was the informal sector discovered by the ILO, I think about 1975, wasn't it or something like that. So here we have informal sector comprising over three quarters of total employment. And during the two decades from 1980, you see it falling here for Thailand. This is what's happened since then. It's got a stagnated. So you have the sort of informalisation of the formal sector. What you see emerging is not an informal sector, but an informal economy. And a lot of the jobs that these young men and women have in Bangkok or in Manila or in Jakarta, I suspect don't, they're precarius. So the issue of precarity. They're fixed term, they're contract based, they're casual. And so keeping hold of the land and a foot in rural areas makes sense in terms of how they're getting incorporated into the industrial workforce. Okay. Then I've got a discussion here about the urban villager and what is urban. This links to some really nice work by someone called Eric Thompson who's a sociologist, mostly of Malaysia where he says, let's stop thinking about urban as what we know and think of urban being which is buildings and houses and built up space and think of urban as a way of living. And then we can see urbanity infiltrating rural space. So people like this couple who I interviewed this is a photo I took I think way back in 1980 and we were talking about it. But these are really sophisticated women now, particularly the daughter standing behind her mother. People putting up houses which are emblematic of what it is to be urban in a rural context. And Eric Thompson talking about socially urban. Charles Kies, rural cosmopolitans and Andrew Walker of middle-income peasants. So if you like scholars I mean Andrew walks an anthropologist Eric Thompson is a sociologist and Charles Kies I guess anthropologist isn't he? Kind of using different terms but I think they're all picking up on the same thing which is about how migration is not just leading to remittances coming back it's a whole set of social remittances which are redefining how people act and behave and interact and what they hold dear and so forth. And this is Charles Kies Northeastern families today have become increasingly cosmopolitan because they are linked to a global labour force have sophisticated understandings of Bangkok society and yet still retain longstanding resentment for being looked down upon as country bunkins. I mean he makes a point in this article that there are probably more well he suggests more rural peasants in Thailand have passports than do the urban lower middle class because they're the ones who kind of go out to Singapore and Brunai and Korea and wherever to secure work so in an odd sort of way they're more worldly men like this man who I first interviewed in 1980 more world, I mean he's been abroad more worldly than the people most of the people in Bangkok and then you get cartoons like this which sees the rural masses as a bunch of kind of idiot buffalo who are just following each other this is the sort of thing that really grates with the rural population right I've got one more I think this is a lot, I've got yeah that's okay I've just put this in because we had an interesting, I know some of you weren't there we had an interesting discussion about history and this is a great, I don't know if anyone knows this painting it's a fantastic painting and as you can see it's called Landscape with the Fall of Icarus by Peter Brogill the Elder and you've got to look at it and you think well why is it called Landscape with the Fall of Icarus and then if you look because you've got a man here plowing his land and a ship sailing into the distance and here's Icarus falling into the sea and W. H. Ordon the poet wrote this one of his poems in Brogill's Icarus for instance how everything turns away quite leisurely from the disaster the ploughman may have heard the splash the forsaken cry but for him it was not an important failure the sun shone as it had on the white legs disappearing into the green water and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen something amazing a boy falling out of the sky had somewhere else to get to sailed calmly on and I this is kind of about the histories that we describe that we get kind of caught up in the big events and we somehow expect those big events to be inscribed in the everyday lives of ploughmen like this guy here when of course it may be that actually those big events mean little or maybe they intersect with the small you know everyday living in ways that we don't anticipate and I think this occasionally I show my students this slide as a way of kind of I suppose divorcing big history the way we understand it from everyday living and asking them to think about the connections between the two right? I've done it in time