Migration: Change and Continuity 'Migration' is an interdisciplinary subject like few others can claim to be. Demographers, economists, sociologists and researchers across disciplines have analysed the causes and consequences of migration for individuals, families, communities and regions. This literature is quite broad in scope and has developed in several directions. Two of these themes, however, are particularly relevant for the economic historian. First, migration and long-term economic change are interdependent processes. For example, industrialization, agrarian expansion, or large-scale development projects can induce migration; and equally, migration, via effects on labour markets that lose or gain workers and via remittances sent back home, can influence economic change. Second, migration is necessarily embedded in social institutions. Since social institutions change relatively slowly, this embeddedness imparts an inertia or a quality of persistence on the way migration decisions take place. Caste, class, gender, household form and religion impinge on the propensity to move, the choice of destinations and strategies to reduce risks or even to feel at home. While decisions to migrate are often responses by individuals to risks at home or earning opportunities abroad, these 'push' and 'pull' factors alone explain little of some of the really large-scale voluntary population movements. They also need to be seen as social decisions in some sense. 1 South Asia has long been familiar to episodes of large-scale voluntary migrations, or 'circulation' to borrow a term from a study of precolonial migrations in the region (Kerr, 2006). Not surprisingly, historians have written at length on migration episodes. They have studied, for example, migration in the medieval world (Ramaswamy, 2016) and the precolonial and colonial worlds (Haynes &