SPECIAL ARTICLE

Missing Labour Force An Explanation

Indira Hirway

Trends in employment and unemployment in India, as presented by the quinquennial surveys of the National Sample Survey Office for the past decades, have raised many questions for which there are no easy answers. This paper attempts to address some missing links. With the help of time use statistics, it argues that the missing labour force does not imply withdrawal of women (and maybe some men) from the labour market. A large part of the missing labour is missing only from the NSSO data but is very much there in the labour force though a small part may be due to withdrawal. It appears missing because of the inability of the NSSO surveys to capture it adequately. This non-missing labour force has important implications for the employment and labour policy in the country. The paper also argues that time use statistics has the potential of overcoming some weaknesses of the NSSO as well as of adding new information on the labour force.

rends in employment and unemployment in India, as presented by the quinquennial surveys of the National Sample Survey Ofce (NSSO) for the past decades, have raised a big debate. This is because these trends, particularly after the results of the 2009-10 survey (NSSO 2010), have raised many questions for which there are no easy answers. Several scholars have thrown useful light on the trends by providing answers to the questions (Kannan and Raveendran 2012; Rangarajan et al 2011; Himanshu 2011; Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2011; Choudhry 2011; Anant and Mehta 2011; EPW 2011); however there are still some missing links. This paper attempts to address these missing links. The paper is divided into two sections: Section 1 presents the different aspects of the ongoing debate, while Section 2 attempts to answer some questions related to the missing workforce and labour force.
1 The Debate

Indira Hirway (Indira.hirway@cfda.ac.in) is with the Centre for Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

The major questions arising from the trends in employment and unemployment are as follows: Very low rate of growth of employment: The 2009-10 report of the NSSO has reported a very low rate of growth of employment (0.5% per year) during the period 2004-05 2009-10 in spite of 8.6% of growth of gross domestic product (GDP) during this period. Absolute decline in unemployment: In spite of the low rate of growth of employment and 1.44% per year rate of growth of population during the period 2004-05 2009-10, there has been an absolute decline in unemployment, from 11.15 million in 2004-05 to 9.7 million in 2009-10. Widely uctuating workforce in the economy: The rate of growth of workforce was around 1% per year during 1993-94 1999-2000; it rose to 2.85% per year during 1999-2000 2004-05; and again crashed to 0.5% per year during 2004-05 2009-10. These wide uctuations appear to be puzzling. One immediate reaction, particularly after the results of 2009-10, was that the data was not reliable. It was argued that NSSO statistics are losing their quality because of its eldworkers, many of whom are now hired on contract and lack adequate training and experience required to collect quality data. However, as pointed by an EPW editorial, the trends called for a detailed and careful investigation. There is no point in shooting the messenger because the message is not palatable (EPW 2011). Several explanations have emerged gradually to explain the peculiar behaviour of these data. One set of explanations is that
67

SEPTEMBER 15, 2012

vol xlvii no 37

SPECIAL ARTICLE

the trends indicate an overall jobless growth. After the results of the 2009-10 survey were out, some scholars described the results as indicating dramatic crash of employment (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2011). It is argued that the highly capitalintensive growth of the economy has failed to create adequate employment opportunities in spite of rapid growth of GDP. Himanshu (2011) presents a useful explanation for the simultaneous existence of low growth of employment and declining unemployment as well as for widely uctuating labour force in the economy. He recommends a long-term analysis of the trends in employment and unemployment to get a better understanding of the uctuations in the data. His longterm analysis shows that changes in employment pattern and workforce structure in the past decade and a half have been sluggish and do not conform to the standard employment-output relationship. According to him, large uctuations after 1993-94 appear to be a result of the movements in and out of labour force of substantial sections of the population, which are vulnerable and informal. Participation in the labour force by these sections is not out of choice, but it is due to poverty. These vulnerable sections include women, children and the elderly who move into the labour market during crisis and move out when conditions are better. The rise and fall of employment have followed relatively bad and good periods respectively. That is, when the preceding period of an NSSO round has been relatively good, workers have withdrawn from the labour market; and when the period has been bad many non-workers have entered the labour market as a coping strategy and taken up whatever jobs including self-employment were available. This indicates that productive jobs are not increasing fast enough in the economy. As the focus of economic growth is on the organised sector, the unorganised sector is neglected, and a class of workers is created who are not beneted by growth and who move in and out of the labour market. The 2.8% growth of employment between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 was largely due to increase in distress employment, while the crash in employment in 2000-10 was due to a decline in distress from the earlier period. These trends therefore raise a serious question about the ability of the economic growth of the Indian economy to offer sustained employment to its labour force. Some scholars, however, have interpreted the trends as an indicator of several positive developments in the economy (Rangarajan et al 2011). It is argued by C Rangarajan and his colleagues that the decline in unemployment between 2004-05 and 2009-10 indicates a decline in the labour force and withdrawal of several sections of workers from the labour market. They observe that (i) 44% of the withdrawal is for education (with the expansion of education in the economy); (ii) 31% of the withdrawal, mainly of women, is to join domestic activities; (iii) 15% is from 0-4 children; and (iv) 10% withdrawal is by disabled persons, pensioners and retired persons. They argue that with the implementation of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Right to Education Act, education has expanded among young children and youths, encouraging them to withdraw from the labour market. Also, with the improvement in wages and income levels, there are not many takers of low paying
68

jobs. Women particularly have withdrawn from the labour market due to rising incomes to join domestic activities such as weaving, tailoring, gathering free goods, domestic services, etc. Explaining why this withdrawal has taken place in spite of the drought in 2009-10 (usually distress employment increases during droughts), they argue that agriculture in India has become drought resilient at least in incomes. Increase in agricultural wages also has helped this withdrawal of women from the labour market. Though they observe that withdrawal of women needs to be investigated further, they see progress in structural transformation in employment in 2009-10. The decline in the share of agricultural workforce in the total workforce and the increase in the share of workforce in non-agriculture indicates a positive structural transformation (Lewisian kind of structural change) of the Indian economy. Kannan and Raveendran (2012) however have taken the argument of Himanshu further by creating a careful prole of the missing labour force. With the help of the statistics on expansion of education of men and women, they argue that this expansion does not explain adequately the fall in the labour force, particularly of women. Of the total decline in the female labour force (28.38 million) during 2004-05 2009-10, 83% decline cannot be explained by expansion of womens education. The fact that (i) the withdrawal of women from the labour force is more in rural areas than in urban areas and (ii) the withdrawal is from all age groups (the maximum withdrawal is in the 30-34 age group) indicates that there are other reasons, other than expansion of womens education, responsible for womens withdrawal. They show that there is a signicant increase in women engaged in activities 1992 and 1993 in 2009-10. The increase is of 29.10 million against the withdrawal of 28.14 million during 2004-05 2009-10. They therefore conclude that 28.16 million women who ought to be in the labour force are compelled to conne themselves in 1992 and 1993 activities, that is, within the four walls of their dwellings. They show that an overwhelming proportion of women who dropped out of the labour force are from rural areas, belonging to economically poor households. Only a small portion of upper class women withdrew due to high incomes. That is, the withdrawal is not just social orthodoxy; it indicates lack of generation of adequate productive employment in the economy. This also shows that the impact of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) has been limited in the economy including women.
Questions about Capability of Growth

The trends in employment and unemployment in the past decade and a half thus raise a serious question about the capability of the growth of GDP in the country to create adequate gainful employment opportunities for the labour force in the economy. The target of creating 50 million productive employment opportunities in the economy has turned out to be a big bluff. To conclude, the above presentations have thrown very useful light on the trends in employment and unemployment in India. The presentations by Himanshu and by Kannan and Raveendran have particularly explained the puzzling behaviour of workforce/labour force with a convincing database.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

However, a few questions arise from the above debate: First, is it feasible that a large chunk of persons move in and out of the workforce and labour force so frequently? That is, do they change their decision to be in and out of the labour market so frequently, when the incidence of poverty is around 40%? Is it feasible that the employment grew at 2.8% rate of growth during 1999-2000 2004-05 and in the next ve years the rate crashed to 0.5% per year? Or do these puzzling trends indicate the inability of the NSSO quinquennial surveys to capture the real picture of employment and unemployment in the country? Another related question is about the very low workforce participation of women in the economy. Is it feasible that 85% of rural women and 89% of urban women (both above ve years) are not engaged in economic activities when the incidence of poverty is as high as 40%? That is, is it a reality that only 15% of women in rural areas and 11% of urban women (above ve years) are participating in economic activities? Many scholars have doubted the capability of labour force surveys including NSSO surveys to estimate workforce and particularly female labour force accurately (Charmes 2004, 2011; Hirway 2002; Hirway and Jose 2011; Jain 2008). The data seem to conrm this doubt.
2 Exploring Answers 1992 and 1993 Categories

Under NSSO surveys, those outside the labour force are classied under the categories 91 (attended education institutions); 92 (attended domestic duties only); 93 (attended domestic duties and were also engaged in (a) free collection of goods such as vegetables, roots, rewood, cattle feed, etc, and (b) sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc); 94 (rentiers, pensioners, remittances recipients, etc,); 95 (not able to work due to disability); 97 others (beggars, prostitutes); 98 (did not work due to sickness); and 99 (children 0-4). All these categories of persons are treated as non-workers. It is important to note that persons engaged in 1993 are treated as non-workers in spite of the fact that they are engaged in economic activities covered under the production boundary of the United Nations-System of National Accounts (UN-SNA) (UN 1993, 2008) because their number is found to be negligible. The question arises whether those engaged in 1993 are really negligible in number or the employment and unemployment surveys of the NSSO are not able to capture their strength correctly. As it is argued later, according to time use surveys, this number is much bigger. One cannot therefore treat persons engaged in 1993 as non-workers. As we shall see, it is important to distinguish between non-workers and workers for the purpose of understanding the labour market and for designing employment policies.
Follow-up Questions and Estimation of Workforce

In quinquennial surveys, follow-up questions are asked to those who report domestic duties (92 and 93) as their principal usual status whether they pursued certain specied activities more or less regularly for their own household consumption along
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

with their domestic duties. These questions were put up to ascertain their level of participation in these specied economic activities which provide economic benets to their households.1 Data are also collected on whether such persons are willing to accept work on household premises, and if yes, the nature of the work acceptable to them and what type of assistance they need. These specied activities can be grouped into three broad categories: Activities Related to Agricultural Production: These activities include maintenance of kitchen garden, orchards, etc; work on household poultry, dairy, etc; free collection of agricultural products like sh, vegetables, small game as well as rewood, cattle feed for own household. Processing of Primary Products: This category includes processing of primary products, such as husking of paddy, grinding of foodgrains, preparation of gur, preservation of sh, meat, etc, for own consumption. Other Activities for Own Consumption: This category includes other activities for economic benets of ones own household, such as making baskets and mats; preparation of cow dung cakes; sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc; free tutoring of own/others children, bringing water from outside household premises and outside the village (for rural areas), etc. The categories two and three are not considered economic activities in the NSSO employment-unemployment surveys. That is, these categories are not covered under the purview of the Indian SNA (ISNA) though UN-SNA does include them in its production boundary. Participation in category 1 activities is observed to be negligible and therefore the persons engaged in category 1 activities are treated as non-workers. This treatment of the three categories raises a question: why are these three categories of activities not included in ISNA when they are a part and parcel of UN-SNA? The reason given is that the participation in these activities by persons very marginal. This logic is not valid, rst, because the follow-up questions are asked only to one category of non-workers who are engaged in activities 1992 and 1993. If, however, other categories of non-workers such as students (91), retired persons, pensioners and remittance recipients (94), persons not able to work (as principal status) due to disability (95) or beggars and prostitutes (97) are also asked these questions, they may report that they participate in any of the activities of the three categories. It is possible that these non-workers do help in their family business or in other unpaid SNA work. Second, participation per se is not important, as the time spent on these activities is more important. It is necessary therefore to estimate the participation not only by estimating their number but also the time spent by them on these activities. And, nally, it is also possible that NSSO is not able to collect realistic data on participation of these persons (with domestic duties as principal status) in the three categories of activities. The Indian time use survey (GoI 2000), 1998-99, the only ofcial time use survey conducted so far in India, for example, shows that 6.53% of men and 24.18% of women participate in only one of the unpaid SNA activities, namely, collection of free goods such as fetching water, collection of fruits, vegetables,
69

SEPTEMBER 15, 2012

vol xlvii no 37

SPECIAL ARTICLE

fuelwood/twigs, collection of raw material for crafts, collection of fodder, collection of minor forest produce like bamboo, leaves, etc, and they (participants) spend 10.48 and 9.62 hours weekly, respectively. This does not include the other unpaid SNA activities like unpaid family work or production of goods for self-consumption. As Table 1 shows, though participation of men is less, the participant men spend marginally more time on these activities.
Table 1: Participation and Time Spent by Men and Women on Collection of Free Goods
Male Female Total

Rural

Participant rate Weekly time spent (hours) Urban Participant rate Weekly time spent (hours) Total Participant rate Weekly time spent (hours)
Source: GoI (2000).

8.03 10.99 3.12 4.42 6.53 9.48

28.2 10.25 14.92 5.94 24.18 9.62

43.74 10.64 8.78 5.22 15.04 10.04

(i) unpaid family work, (ii) free collection of goods of different kinds, and (iii) household production for self-consumption. The NSSO is not able to capture the rst kind adequately though ISNA includes them in SNA; and though the second and third are a part of UN-SNA (UN 1993, 2008), they are excluded on the ground that the participation in these activities is negligible. The time use survey data show that neither the participation nor the time spent on these activities is negligible. These must be treated as SNA activities. An important implication of this is that a large chunk of the labour force does not move in and out of the labour force, but it moves in and out of the low productivity distress work that they take up as a coping strategy. Our explanation also agrees that the high growth in the past two decades has not treated employment well.
Time Use Survey for Improved Estimates and Better Understanding

One can say that the participation as well as time spent by men and women on all the three categories put together is likely to be signicant. It cannot be termed as negligible. Ahead we compare the work participation rate (WPR) of men and women under the time use survey and under NSSO.
SNA and Non-SNA Work/Workers

Why is it important to put these persons engaged in 1993 and in the three categories under the workforce or SNA and not in non-SNA or in non-worker category? There are several reasons for this: to start with, these workers are offering themselves as workers in the labour market and they do not want to be restricted to domestic services or other non-worker status. They are not necessarily conned to the four walls of their home (though some of them do work at home and may be interested in taking up home-based SNA work), as they go out to collect free goods for their own consumption or for economic activities like animal husbandry, craft, etc. Many of them are in these activities because they have no choice, no access to other more productive activities in the economy. These workers cannot be clubbed with those engaged in domestic duties, as they have shown their availability in nondomestic activities in the labour market. They need to be covered under policies pertaining to labour and employment so that their labour is used productively in the labour market. Second, when covered under SNA , these low productivity activities which are frequently drudgery will be covered under the purview of labour market policies. This work and workers will claim the attention of policymakers as well as funds from the national exchequer for the improvement of their productivity and well-being. This sector, the unpaid SNA , will be treated as a lagging sector in the economy where workers are not able to give their best in the labour market. Their participation in unpaid SNA implies that they need skill upgradation and improved quality of participation. In short, the missing labour force is this labour force in informal and subsistence workforce that cannot be captured by the NSSO surveys. The NSSO concepts and methods are not able to capture this unpaid SNA work, which consists of
70

It will not be out of place here to mention the major ndings of our study that compares workforce estimates (current weekly status) under the NSSO (1999-2000) and weekly estimates of the workforce under time use survey (1998-99) (Hirway and Jose 2011).2 The study shows that the WPRs of both men and women in rural as well as urban areas are higher under the time use survey than under the NSSO. The time use survey-based rates are higher not only with a wider concept of SNA, but also with a narrow and comparable concept of SNA used under the NSSO. The two sets of comparable WPR also show that (i) the gender gaps in WPR are much less under the time use survey; (ii) the interstate variations in womens WPR also are much lower under time use surveys; and (iii) the diversication of the workforce (in terms of percentage of workers in the non-primary sectors) is less under the time use survey than what is presented by the NSSO. The last is due to considerable underestimation of the workforce in the primary sector (than in the non-primary sectors) under the NSSO (refer to the Appendix on p 72). Our analysis also provides additional information on the characteristics of the workforce: (i) the time spent on work by workers per day and per week that measures the intensity of work; (ii) multiple jobs (more than two, three or even ve jobs) performed by different sections of the workforce; and (iii) nally, the time use survey data also show that women and children are predominant in the collection of free goods, animal grazing, and other subsistence work (refer to the Appendix). There are several reasons why time use surveys provide improved information on the workforce. First, time use surveys collect comprehensive information on how people spend their time on different activities without missing any activity. As a result, the time use survey is able to capture scattered, sporadic and irregular informal work in a comprehensive manner. This work is likely to be missed out under NSSO surveys. Second, a major advantage of time use surveys over NSSO surveys is that they do not ask any direct question to respondents whether they are workers or non-workers. Whether an activity is economic or not is determined neither by the
SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

respondent nor by the investigator while collecting the information. This is determined, after collecting comprehensive information on how people spend their time, while coding and classifying the activities. As a result, the bias of the respondent (mainly women) or of the investigator is not likely to affect the data adversely. In addition, a time use survey can capture multiple jobs easily. The NSSO surveys capture one subsidiary activity or maybe two. In a time use survey, however, one can capture three, four or even ve jobs, as all the scattered work is collected comprehensively. This is important for the poor, as they are observed to be performing several economic activities to survive.3 Also, the time use survey captures simultaneous activities, that is, the activities carried out simultaneously. For example, home-based work and childcare. Such work is frequently observed in the case of women and particularly poor women. The time use survey can capture this work by using a suitable context variable, while this work is missed out by the NSSO. In short, a time use survey has the potential of overcoming some weaknesses of the NSSO on the one hand and of adding new information on the workforce on the other. It is capable of supplementing and complementing information collected by NSSO surveys.
Recent Developments in India

Programme Implementation (MoSPI) to explore the feasibility of conducting an all-India time use survey.4
Concluding Observations

Looking at the importance of time use surveys in capturing workforce comprehensively, particularly in the informal and subsistence sectors, it is now recognised that such surveys can complement and supplement the employment and unemployment surveys undertaken by the NSSO. An expert group has therefore been set up by the Ministry of Statistics and
Notes
1 The term Economic Activities is used here as per the NSSO. It is important however to recognise non-SNA activities of women also as economic activities, as these activities are also a part of the broader concept of Economy. But we do not want to get into this debate here. Weekly estimates of WPR under time use survey and WPR under Current Weekly Status of NSSO are comparable. See for details Hirway and Jose (2011). For example, a rural woman may take care of milch animals in the morning, collect fuelwood and fodder thereafter, and work as hired labour on a farm in the afternoon. Recently, the MoSPI has appointed an expert committee under the chairmanship of S R Hashim to conduct an all-India time use survey.

One major conclusion is that the missing labour force is not really missing it is not moving out of the labour market at least a majority is not though a small part may be due to withdrawal. They move to sectors which are difcult to measure by NSSO surveys. That is, this missing labour force moves to low productivity informal work and subsistence work, within the labour market, as a coping strategy. Their participation and the time spent by them on these activities are not negligible, if proper methods for data collection are used. This non-missing labour force needs to be covered under employment policies, as they are a part of the labour market. They cannot be treated as persons engaged in domestic duties. In fact, the NSSO generally underestimates those workers who are working in scattered, sporadic and irregular informal work, those engaged in self-employment activities for survival, and those engaged in free collection of goods or in manufacturing goods for self-consumption. As a result, the workforce and labour force has been underestimated in the past rounds also. This recent decline clearly indicates worsening of the situation. The rapid economic growth has failed miserably to create adequate employment opportunities in the Indian economy. The paper also argues that time use statistics have the potential of overcoming some weaknesses of the NSSO as well as of adding new information on the labour force. Time use surveys are capable of supplementing and complementing information collected by NSSO surveys. The recent rst steps taken by the MoSPI in promoting time use surveys are therefore most welcome.
Towards Mainstreaming Time Use Surveys in National Statistical System in India, pp 168-87, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, New Delhi. Kannan, K P and G Raveendran (2012): Counting and Proling the Missing Labour Force, Economic & Political Weekly, 47(6): 43-59. National Sample Survey Organisation (2000): Employment and Unemployment in India, July 1999-June 2000, NSS 55th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. (2010): Employment and Unemployment in India, July 2009-June 2010, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. Rangarajan, C, Padma Iyer Kaul and Seema (2011): Where Is the Missing Labour Force?, Economic & Political Weekly, XLVII(39): 68-72. Saha, Vaskar (2003): Estimation of Workforce Using Time Use Statistics in Proceedings of the Seminar on Applications of Time Use Statistics, Central Statistical Ofce, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India and UNIFEM, New Delhi. United Nations (UN) (1993): Systems of National Accounts, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, New York. (2008): Systems of National Accounts, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, New York.

References
Anant, T C A and Rajiv Mehta (2011): Has Employment Fallen in India?, Wall Street Journal, July. Chandrasekhar, C P and J Ghosh (2011): Latest Employment Trends from the NSSO, Business Life, 12 July. Charmes, Jacques (2004): Data Collection on the Informal Sector: A Review of Concepts and Methods Used since the Adoption of an International Denition of Informal Sector, paper presented at the meeting of the Delhi Group on
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

Informal Sector Statistics, Park Hotel, Connaught Place, New Delhi, 6-8 April 2011. (2011): Understanding Informal Sector Employ ment Using Time Use Statistics, paper presented at the International Workshop on Towards Harmonisation of Time Use Surveys at the Global Level with Special Reference to Developing Countries, Government of India, UN Women and Centre for Development Alternatives, 6-8 April. Choudhry, S (2011): Employment in India: What Does the Latest Data Show?, Economic & Political Weekly, 46(32): 23-26. Government of India (2000): Report of the Time Use Survey, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. Economic & Political Weekly (2011): Dont Shoot the Messenger, Editorial , Economic & Political Weekly, 46(28). Himanshu (2011): Employment Trends in India: A Re-examination, Economic & Political Weekly, 46(37): 43-59. Hirway, Indira (2002): Employment and Unemployment in the 1990s: How Good Are the NSS Data?, Economic & Political Weekly, 37(21): 2027-36. Hirway, Indira and Sunny Jose (2011): Understanding Womens Work Using Time Use Statistics: The Case of India, Feminist Economics, 17(4): 67-92. Jain, Devaki (2008): Integrating Unpaid Work into Macroeconomics: Some Indian Experiences, in Report of the International Seminar on
vol xlvii no 37

SEPTEMBER 15, 2012

71

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Appendix Based on Our Analysis of Time Use Survey Based (1998-99) and NSSO Based (1999-2000) Statistics on Workforce and Labour Force Table 1: Estimated WPR from NSSO and Time Use Survey (with comparable concepts of work)
States Male NSSO 1999-2000 Rural Female TUS 1998-99 Rural Female NSSO 1999-2000 Urban Male Female TUS 1998-99 Urban Female

Person

Male

Person

Person

Male

Person

Haryana Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Orissa Tamil Nadu Meghalaya Combined states

46.2 51.2 57.1 52.7 56.6 55.6 51.0

17.7 30.7 35.5 23.3 38.1 42.0 25.3

32.8 41.3 46.4 37.9 47.4 48.7 38.4

58.7 61.8 63.4 61.7 68.4 58.6 63.3

61.47 54.92 58.48 58.34 60.62 59.35 58.2

59.9 58.6 61.1 60.0 64.5 58.9 60.8

50.2 47.3 52.9 45.7 55.2 39.3 50.9

10.0 12.1 12.5 11.6 20.1 19.7 12.8

31.3 30.5 33.6 29.3 38.1 29.7 32.7

54.5 57.5 56.9 58.4 63.8 53.8 59.3

39.08 30.68 25.78 30.97 34.21 35.06 30.89

47.6 44.9 42.3 45.8 48.9 43.8 45.67

Sources: NSSO (2000), Saha (2003).

Table 2: Gender Gap in WPRs in India under Time Use Survey and NSSO
States Male TUS 1998-99 Female Gap Male NSSO 1999-2000* Female Gap Male Census 2001 Female Gap

Haryana Meghalaya Orissa Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Combined states/all India Coeff of variation

57.98 57.77 61.02 66.76 60.99 60.96 62.16 0.07

57.59 55.05 53.68 51.04 50.26 46.55 50.75 0.11

0.39 2.72 7.34 15.72 10.73 14.41 11.41

47.19 52.57 51.76 56.12 50.3 55.65 50.97 0.09

15.8 37.85 21.73 31.95 26.39 27.57 22.09 0.41

31.39 14.72 30.03 24.17 23.91 28.08 28.88

50.49 47.76 52.75 58.06 51.62 55.02 51.93 0.1

27.31 35.02 24.62 31.32 33.1 28.03 25.68 0.21

23.18 12.74 28.13 26.74 18.52 26.99 26.25

Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99), NSSO (1999-2000) and Census of Population (2001).

Table 3: Percentage Distributions of Workers under Time Use Survey (1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000) by Industrial Categories
Industrial Category Time Use Survey (1998-99) Men Women Person NSSO (1999-2000) Men Women Person

Figure 2: NSSO and Time Use Survey Based WPRs by Age Groups: Female
100 80 60 NSSO 40 20 TUS

Primary Secondary Territory

56.13 15.11 28.75

77.45 9.97 12.59

66.00 12.00 22.00

47.00 20.20 32.80

70.00 13.50 16.50

53.80 18.40 27.80

Source: Hirway and Jose (2011) based on time use survey (1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000).

Table 4: Number of SNA Activities Performed by Men and Women (Time Use Survey 1998-99)
States 1 2 Men 3-5 >5 1 Women 2 3-5 >5

0 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and above Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000). 5-9

Haryana Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Orissa Tamil Nadu Meghalaya Combined

10.78 45.69 38.55 8.94 40.34 45.7 13.59 55.03 28.73 26.59 45 27.6 17.27 56.13 24.77 8.5 25.82 61.27 15.17 49 32.89

4.99 5.02 2.66 0.81 1.83 4.41 2.94

17.97 25.66 23.58 32.81 36.76 23.05 28.85

19.3 42.51 20.22 37.09 34.53 2.72 29.4 39.74 7.28 34.42 32.18 0.6 34.25 27.59 1.4 28.93 43.47 4.55 30.71 35.06 5.37

Figure 3: NSSO and Time Use Survey Based WPRs by Age Groups: Male + Female
100 80 60 NSSO 40 20 0 TUS

Sources: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99).

Figure 1: NSSO and Time Use Survey Based WPRs by Age Groups: Male
120 TUS 100 80 60 NSSO 40 20 0 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and above Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99), GoI (2000) and NSSO (1999-2000), NSSO (2000).

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and above Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000).

5-9

available at

Uniquality
83, Janapath, Bapujee Bazar Bhubaneshwar 751 009, Orissa Ph: 2530064, 2530024
SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

72