Social Scientist

Issues Relating to Employment in India in the Era of Globalisation Author(s): Praveen Jha Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 31, No. 11/12 (Nov. - Dec., 2003), pp. 47-65 Published by: Social Scientist Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517949 . Accessed: 24/10/2011 06:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

Issues Relating to Employment in India in the Era of Globalisation

D
It would be stressingthe obvious that the generation of productive employmentopportunitiesought to be consideredan importantpolicy objectiveon any meaningfulagendaof economic development,and on this frontthe Indianexperience,spreadover decadesnow, emergesin a very poor light. By all accounts, the problem of widespread more seriousin the unemploymenthas tended to become progressively recent years, and since the early 1990s, i.e. the period of neo-liberal reforms, it may have assumed crisis proportions. The fact of sharp deceleration in the rate of employment generation during the last decade (see Table 1) is widely acknowledged,and the unemployment rate in India, on current Daily Status Basis, as per the relevant NSS rounds, has gone up from 6 percentin 1993-94 to 7.3 percentin 19992000. Moreover, and not unexpectedly,increase in the incidence of unemploymenthas been sharperfor relativelymore vulnerablesocial and economic groups.The incidenceof unemploymenthas reportedly increased,inspite of the reportedslowing down of the growth of the labourforce, (the latterbeing somewhatof a puzzle), in the recentpast. As per the NSS surveys,the labour force growth ratewas 2.43 percent per annum between 1983-94 and it came down to 1.31 percent per annum between 1993-94 and 1999-2000. The increasing gravity of the unemployment problem in the 1990s, based on the findings emerging from all our major large scale data systems, such as the Economic Census of 1998, Population Census of 2001, EmploymentExchangeStatistics,the relevantrounds of the NSS etc., has frequentlybeen acknowledgedin official circles, and two relativelyrecent initiativesof the PlanningCommission: (a) the Task Force on Employment Opportunity, headed by M.S. Ahluwalia, and (b) Special Group on Targeting Ten Million Employment Opportunities per year, headed by S.P. Gupta, have examined the relevanttrends in some detail. These reports, as well as several other studies seem to indicate that a continuation of the for experience of late 1990s may aggravatethe problem dramatically; instance, it has been suggested by some that even with a high GDP growth rate of 8 percent per annum over the next decade, the unemployment rate may touch more than double of the current one by the end of the 10th Five Year Plan (for details, see GOI, 2002). :

Social Scientist

c--4

u 0

cZ--

48

Quite a few studies by economists have also appearedafter the NSS data for 1999-2000became available(e.g. Sundaram,2001; Sen and Jha,2001; Chadha and Sahu, 2002, among others), analysingthe emergingtrends in some detail, and true to the reputation of our profession, (that if there are two economists there must be three views!), some are quite optimistic about the latest developments. Laterin this piece, the major features,including the bones of contention, regardingthe pace and pattern of employment - unemployment developments during the last couple of decades will be recalled. But before that it may be useful, I believe, to raise a couple of issues to contextualizethe problem better. The first of these relatesto a grand one, and is in a territory where even angels would probablyfear to tread,but I would like to stick my neck out: this is about the root causes of unemployment in contemporary capitalism,in particulardevelopingcountries. The second issue also falls in a highly controversialdomain, and it is about the implications of the globally ascendant neoliberal economic policy regimes for the unemployment scenario. There is a huge literatureon both these areas, and I do not intend surveying it here. I only propose to state a couple of arguments which are central to a perspective that may be useful, admittedly at a high level of generality,in approachingthe problem of unemployment. It is quite possible that a non-economist choosing to visit one of the most prominent debatesin the 1970sand 1980s, among the leading professionalsin LabourEconomics in the developedworld would feel completely unsettled. I am referring here to the debate among economists whether the so called involuntary unemployment exists at all. In the US for instance, some of the leading neoclassical economists argued that substantial sections of those being counted as unemployed by the current population surveyswere infact engaged in searchingfor better jobs or were voluntarilyjobless (because of a strong preference for leisure in the present). Such a view appearedto have become quite prominent among economists inspite of the common perception that unemployment was rampant and a major problem. Nobel LaureateRobertSolow, among others, led the counter attackfrom within the mainstream trying to convince the profession that many among the unemployed wanted to work and were simply unable to find jobs. As Solow put it: 'I believe that what looks like involuntary unemployment is involuntary unemployment' (1980, p. 3). In the course of the 1980s, this seemingly, obvious argument became increasinglymore acceptable (which was facilitatedby analyticalconstructsaround the 'efficiencywage theories'), and even high profile neoliberals like Lawrence Summers argued that involuntaryunemployment is an analyticallymeaningfuland useful concept, and such unemployment constitutes a serious social problem that needs to be a target of the public policy (Summers, 1990).

Issues Relating to Employment

Non-economists with some knowledge of labour history would have been amused by the above debate for another reason:our profession'sability to resurrectghosts which appearedto have been buried for good only some decades ago. It may be of some interestto report the reaction of a well-known labour historian in the US, AlexanderKeyssar,to the said debate: 'What is striking to a historian is not the relative merits of particulararguments so much as the fact the debate has been taking place - and is taken seriously- at all. Why is this happening?Why are sophisticated experts spending a great deal of time and energy arguingabout the existence of a phenomenon whose existence seems obvious to anyone who has walked around a blue-collar, or low-income, neighbourhood? Why is the mainstream of the profession pondering the reality of a chronic social problem that was formally and officially recognized as such more than 50 years ago, with the passageof the Social SecurityAct (or 11 years later in the EmploymentAct of 1946)?...Did some one in the 1970s find millions of the unemployed lolling around Palm Beach, cavalierlyspilling red wine on the want ads in the paper?'(Keyssar, 1993). Keyssargoes on to offer his own explanations for what appearsto be an intellectualabsurdity,which I shall not pursue here further,except to note his comment that has the imprint of Brechtian black humour: a trick often employed by economists is to ignore the facts that don't suit your theory or, still better, fabricateas per your theoreticalconvenience. In one of his majorcontributions,Keyssar(1986) takesa close look at the history of unemployment, and unemployment policy in the United States of America from the 1870s to 1980s, and discusses differentincarnationsof the debate on the existence of unemployment, and shows how the conservative intellectuals in different eras wish to remedy the problem of joblessness among the most vulnerable sections of the working class by simply denying their existence. Without going into the fascinatinghistorical account, let me simply state here one of his majorconclusions:involuntaryunemployment as understood in contemporary discussion was already a clearly visible and prominent phenomenon in the US duringthe 1870s,and with some fluidity for instance assuming crisis proportions during economic depressions as in the late 1920s/early 1930s, or becoming relativelyless of a problem mainly due to appropriatepolicy interventionsby the government - continues upto the present as well, as a systemic feature,in the sense of being rooted in the fundamental dynamics and structures of that socio-economic system. In short, the historical record of US capitalism during the last 150 odd years confirms a chronic presence of unemployment with some fluctuations in its level. Similarly, the other most developed region in the world, Western Europe and Japan, with their own historical specificities, would confirm

p(D (D cD

<

'pi

49

Social Scientist

a) 0 c-4

o z

5>

much the same about the presence of involuntary unemployment, as understood in modern discourses,since the emergenceof a largepropertyless working class during the course of transitionto capitalism. Possiblythe only brief period when unemployment was not a significant problem in the developed world was the peak years in the 1960s, the socalled Golden Age of Capitalism(Marglinand Schor, 1990). Those familiarwith the writingsof KarlMarx, a name which seems to be an anathema for many intellectuals but whose contributions in terms of several insights into the working of capitalism remains unparalled, would immediately recognize a compelling case for the validity of the concept of a 'reserve army of labour' being a permanent feature of capitalistsocieties in terms of their normal functioning, and not as some sort of aberration.Those who feel uneasywith Marx'spolitics may feel more comfortablewith the same conclusion reachedby 'politicallycorrect'MassachusettsBureauof Statistics of Labour,'Howeverprosperousconditions may be, there is alwaysa 'reserve army' of the unemployed' (quoted in Keyssar,1986). Thus the appropriate question is not about the existence of unemployment under capitalism, but about its structure and locations in differentsocio-economic circumstanceswhich is where a historicallynuanced enquiry regardingthe trajectoryof transition to capitalism and subsequent dynamism in specific cases may be useful inputs. It is with such an understandingthat the following argument,again at a high level of generality,may be of some relevance.Paul Baran,in his Political Economy of Growth, written more than four decades ago, was deeply pessimistic as regardsthe prospects of economic development in general in the countries of the Third World, and his skepticism was stretched to the extreme by the 'Dependency School' theorists. However, the strategy of relatively antonomous development and often public sector led industrialisation,adopted in varyingdegreesin severalcountries of the Third World, resulted, in many cases, in growth outcomes which had been unprecedented and quite respectable with reference to any appropriate benchmark. Yet, most of these economies were unable to achieve much in terms of addressing the related problems of poverty, unemployment and occupational structuraltransformation.As is well-known, in most developed was countries in the capitalistworld, the process of economic transformation associatedwith the share of agriculturein total economic output and labour force becoming quite small. In fact the early development literature hypothesized this as the final destiny for all countries. However, the experience of the much of the Third World shows that inspite of respectable output growth during the period of planned economic development during the second half of the 20th century, vast masses of population continue to

Issues Relating to Employment

X sector.As may be seen from Tables2, derivetheir livelihood from agricultural < 3 and 4, the contrastbetween the contemporarydevelopedworld and the rest ( in this respect is quite striking. One may add that the prospect of any substantial shift in occupational ' structureaway from agriculturein most developing countries seems remote, not only in the near futurebut also in the long run; in fact, much of the shift out of agriculturein these countries is caused by 'push' factor as the sheer logic of survival forces many households from rural areas to diversify their livelihood strategy,with little chances of absorption in the so called formal secondaryor tertiarysectors.Those expelled from agricultureoften end up in the drudgery and squalor of the so called urban informal sector, doing a variety of odd jobs. The 'dual economy' models and other 'modernization' paradigms, that had hypothesized a relatively smooth transition in occupational structure, and were quite influential within the economics profession in the earlypost World War - II years,seemed to have got it wrong in retrospect.Thus, in the countries of the ThirdWorld, even where increases in industrial output have been rapid, growth of employment in modern industrieshave been far from impressive.In recent years,it appearsthat there is little to choose across the developed and developing regimesas regardsthe employment intensity of aggregatemanufacturingvalue added, as may be seen from Table 5 for some selected countries. It would be reasonable to argue that in terms of labour absorption in modern manufacturing or services sector, contemporary third world countries may not be as favourablyplacedas the countries of the firstworld in their comparablephases; this may well be partly linked to the differencesin the availability of technology options in the respective stages under consideration. In any case, as should be evident from the Tables2-4, in large parts of the developing world, a majordecline in dependence on agriculture, and the transferof labour into decent livelihood options elsewhere,does not seem to be on cards in the foreseeable future. Further, Table 6 presents information on the structure of GDP, and the occupational structure, for selected countries from Asia, Africaand LatinAmerica.Fromeach continent, four countries have been picked, two from the upper end and two from the lower end, as per their ranking in terms of per capita income. As is clearly evident, share of agriculturein total employment is substantiallyhigher in all cases compared to its share in output. Moreover, in an absolute sense, the dependence on agriculturein many cases is of a high order. Also, the high share of the services sector may not be due to any positive development but on account of distress diversification (particularly in a variety of self employed services), and may also hide the fact that sections of them happen 5 to be forced part-time agriculturalworkers as well, as they are parked there

Social Scientist

?rs4

0 Z

0 z >

52

for lack of options. Finally,there is also the possibility,in view of the weight of agricultural sector in employment, that unemployment estimates in the aggregateare prone to greatermarginsof error,a point I shall return to later. In fact, difference in the weight of agriculture(both in the output and employment) is among the most striking contrasts between the developed and underdevelopedcountries.As an aside, it may be interestingto note that in terms of levels of industrializationthe contemporarythirdworld countries were not any worse off compared to the contemporarydeveloped countries about 250 years ago, as may be seen from the Table 7. Why the gap between these two sets of countries has widened so much is a complex story. However, as is well-acknowledged,one importantstrandof the explanationwould have to be the way the contemporary developed world managed to get an economic strangleholdover the Third World, typicallythrough colonisation, in and contributedtowardsits backwardness a variety of ways.The only point worth emphasizinghere is that a sort of structuralimbalance,in terms of large scale and continued dependence on agriculturein much of the Third World has roots in the ways it got enmeshed into, and was dominated by, capitalist colonialism and imperialism.When countries of the Third World embarked on their development initiatives after their decolonisation, the drag of the wasted centuries, along with their massivephase lag in terms of technological and productive abilitywere the obvious handicapsin terms of achievingrapid structural transformation,and the prospects of such a transformationgot further embroiled in serious difficulties on account of several reasons, including inadequate addressingof their agrarianquestions. This structural imbalancehas become almost a durabletrap,which condemns large sections of their working class to remain entrapped with nebulous identities in multiple strategies of survival. In fact, one may even make a stronger statementthat substantialsegmentsof workingclass in much of ThirdWorld, including India, may be betterconsideredproto-proletariator sub-proletariat (ratherthan proletariatin the acceptedsense of the term), given that they are parked, for lack of options, in the agriculturalsector, or in self-employment and unpaid family employment. Such a scenario, apart from other considerations, makes the tasks of enumeration of workforce, estimation of unemployment etc. far more challenging than in the case of developed countries. With these few remarkson contextualizingunemployment in developing countries,let me turn verybrieflyto the second issue mentioned at the outset, namely, the implications of the globally ascendantneo-liberalpolicy regimes for unemployment scenario.Although, in recent years, neo-liberaleconomic policy regimes became the ruling deity in different countries at different points startingwith early 1970s, it is since early 1990s that such policies have

Issues Relating to Employment

found a global playing field, having a variety of profound implications for labour markets,both quantitativelyand qualitatively.Recent surveysby ILO of the unemployment trends in different regions of world suggest a grim outlook. As per its estimates,by the end of the 1990s, some 1 billion workers - or one third of the world's labour force - were either unemployed or underemployed. As Table 8 shows, high levels of unemployment stubbornly persisted in the world economy through the 1990s; moreover, the accounts for the last couple of yearsdo not show any signs of improvement,and maybe even worsening including in more dynamiceconomies such as the US. It may also be noted that during the 1990s, employment in the global economy increasedon averageby 1.4 percent annually,where as the labour force grew at a rate of 1.7 percent per year. (ILO,2002). Almost the entire addition in the labour force is taking place in the developing countries, and as per ILO's projections, close to 65 percent of the increase in the world labour force during the first decade of the 21st centurywill be in Asia alone. That is quite indicative of the challenge confronting countries in the region. Persistenceof high levels of unemployment in the differentregions of the global economy lend definitivesupport,if that was requiredat all, for the view that the macro-economic policies based on neo-liberal doctrines are hardly consistent with a progressive employment agenda even in the structurally most favourably placed economies, let alone in the more adverse circumstances prevailing in most developing countries. The rhetoric of optimism about the positive impacts of liberalisation and globalisation on employment, through a variety of presumed mechanisms that sounded almost pre-Keynesian,had many takers at the beginning of the 1990s. The neo-liberals claimed that their policies would increasethe rate of investment as well as the efficiency of such investment in terms of targetingappropriate activities,choice of technology etc. which would ultimatelycontribute to the elimination of unemployment. For developing countries, so their argument went, the inward looking capital-intensive import substitution policy had resulted in a bias against agriculture and other employment-intensive activities with respect to both the domestic and external markets and thus labour utilisation had been well below potential; it was hoped that the marketist reforms along neo-liberal line would rectify the above noted bias and facilitatea surge of investment,both from domestic and foreign sources, in labour-intensiveprojectswith significantexport-orientation. All the available evidence since the ascendancy of the neo-liberal economic policy package confirm that the expectations regarding greater labour utilization in the global economy, through changesin structureas well as intensity of employment have not been realised.The evidence against the neo-liberal position on this count is well-known and almost universally

cD D

<

53

Social Scientist

O ?r4 (1)

0 -7 0 z
rn

>

54

acknowledged (including by economists at the World Bank and IMF), and there is little sense in buttressingthe point any furtherhere. In fact the view that the neo-liberalsgot it wrong may be a charitableway of putting it; those given to plain speakingwould like to submit that the internationaleconomic policy driven by neo-liberalorthodoxy that became dominant globally in the 1990s was simply succumbingto the commercial and financialinterestswhile sacrificing the interest of the labour, as is acknowledgedeven by dissenting mainstreameconomists such as JosephStiglitz (Stiglitz,2001). In much of the developing world, the employment elasticityof whatever growth that has occurred in recent years has been extremely low; also, as indicated earlier (Table 5), there is not much difference between the developed and the developing countries in the employment intensity of aggregate manufacturing value added. Simply to illustrate how weak the employment prospects are, one may cite a recent study by Chandrasekhar (Chandrasekhar,2002). This study using the UNIDO data calculates employment elasticities of manufacturing production for a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, which are generally described as impressive performers, over the period 1985-98. As he puts it: 'What is striking is how low most of the employment elasticities appear to be. Even more striking is the negative elasticitiesthat emerge in some cases, also in a rangeof manufacturingsectors that aretypicallythought of as being" labourintensive"'. This study also reports that employment scenario for aggregate industry,ratherthan just manufacturing,has been as grim during the period under consideration. The inescapable conclusion that emerges is that the period of globalisationand liberalisationhas been far off the mark as regards creating a conducive scenario from the point of view of employment expansion. Clearlythe hopes of the advocatesof neo-liberalmarketistreforms have not materialized. We may also note here that the data on count of workers as well as unemployment in a whole rangeof socalledinformalsectorsin ruralor urban areas in developing countries are extremely unreliable. As I have tried to argue elsewhere (Jha, 1997), in India it may well be the case that in such sectors the count of workersmay be understatedas the relativelyvulnerable sections among them are invisible whereas the quantum of employment is overstated;it is quite possible that the situation in most developing countries is no different. For such countries, ILO often makes significant upward adjustments in worker-populationratios; for instance, in case of India the ILO estimates for this ratio are almost 15 to 20 percent higher than those reportedby the official data systems such as the Census or the NSS. If such a view is plausible, it means that in any case the official unemployment estimates in developing countries may well be significantly understated.As

Issues Relating to Employment

regardsthe Indian case, it may be noted that there are numerous field studies in which have found that employment availability ruralareasare substantially less than the figures reportedby the official sources, and in all likelihood the situation has worsened drasticallyin the recent years. For reasons of space, it is not possible to get into a discussion of these field studies here and the subsequent discussion regarding employment trends etc. are based on the well known secondarydata systems. It should be evident from the backdrop sketched above, as regardsthe prospects of productive employment in a developing country, the task at hand is a Herculeanone and the relevantdata sources for India, whateverbe their limitations, do underscorethe growingenormity of the problem. Tables 9&10 provide a summaryof the broad-brushtrends since early 1970s. The obviously important message emerging from these numbers is that during the 1990s, there has been a very significant decelerationin the rate of growth of employment; moreover, even the traditional parking lot, namely agriculture,is unable to perform the function of the residualsector and the rural areashave borne the brunt of the sharp deceleration.In fact, the much talked about process of diversificationof employment from the mid 1970s to the late 1980s, away from agricultureand primaryactivitiestowards a variety of nonagricultural avenues has tended to come under pressure and the growth rate of the latterhas also slowed down considerably.As is well known, it was primarily on account of very significant acceleration in public expenditure in rural areas in 1970s and '80s that the above noted diversification had gathered momentum (Sen, 1996; Chandrasekharand Ghosh, 2002); however,the 1990switnesseda policy shift for the worse in this regard.Similarly,the policies pursued since early 1990s,such as the reduction in priority sector credit allocation, whittling of subsidies beneficial to smallscale exportersand the onslaught againstthem due to deregulationand trade liberalizationhave militated againstthe interestof most smallproducers,thus hitting at the prospects of urban manufacturingemployment. Also public investments in infrastructure,both in rural and urban areas, have been adverselyaffected since the initiation of neo-liberal macroeconomic strategy since 1991 which obviously have added to the bottlenecks for producers acrossthe board, creatingfurtherdifficultiesto the prospectsof employment expansion. It is worth highlightinghere that employment creatingcapacityof organizedsector growth has touched its lowest since independence;as per the 55th round of NSS, in 1999-2000, it was as low as 0.06 which is almost jobless growth. In such a situation the policy battering that the unorganized sector has received in recent years has obvious ominous consequences from the point of view of employment generation.In fact, but for the very significant slowing down of the labour force growth, the incidence of unemployment

(D

<

55

Social Scientist

56

obviously would have been much higher. We may also note that some economists (e.g. Sundaram2001) have tended to interpretthe slowing down of labour force as a positive development but such a view is contestable (e.g. Sen & Jha, 2003), and such slowing down may well reflect the 'discouraged worker effect' (Ghosh & Chandrashekhar, 2002). In the Indian case, as in most developingcountries, the issue of qualityof employment is as important an issue, as the issue of quantity given that the overwhelming proportion of workers employed in the informal sector, accounting for about 92 percent, work under extremely vulnerable conditions; facts on this count arewell known and need not be repeatedhere. However, it is worth stressing here that almost all the indicators associated with quality of employment indicate a worsening scenario.As per the 19992000 NSS data, almost 53 percent of workers in unorganized segments of manufacturingand construction in rural India were below the poverty line, followed by 40 percent of agriculturallabourers; clearly the prospect of improvement though the nonfarm avenues in rural areas,which seemed to hold some promise, have suffered a setback. Another obvious indicator of quality, i.e. the proportion of casual labourers in economically the more vulnerable activities, also suggests a worsening. Although the expansion of casualsegment and the shrinkingof the self-employedas well as regularhired segments have been in evidence for some time now, it appearsthat during the 1990ssuch tendenciesgot a furtherpush in case of those labouringundervery fragile conditions. Finally, it is quite instructive to note the differential in growth ratesbetween participationas main and marginalworkersreportedby the Census data during the last couple of decades. Between 1981 and 1991, the percentage growth rate in participation as main workers was alreadya measly 0.18 and it turned negativeto 1.11 percent between 1991-2001;on the other hand participation as marginal workers increased substantially from 0.61 percent in 1981-91to 9.85 during 1991-2001. 55th round of the NSS also reports an increase in the number of part-time workersand a decline in the number of full time workers, and such trends are quite marked in rural unorganised agro-based industries. In sum, increasing casualization and marginalization are prominent and growing feature of the labouring landscape of the overwhelmingproportion of the workforcein the informal sector, and a very substantial section of them remain entrapped in low productivity activities and persistentpoverty. There is no evidence whatever that the marketistneo-liberalreformshas any positive news for them. This brings us back to the much repeated subject since independence: framework of an appropriate employment strategy for Indian economy. There is a huge literatureon the subject and those familiarwith the current policy prescriptionsas well as the old debates will obviously have a sense of

Issues Relating to Employment

deja vu. It is not my purpose to survey the relevant arguments here. I only wish to state what seems pretty obvious: the proponents of neo-liberal strategy,that largelyguides India'scurrenteconomic policy framework,have got it all wrong. It is worth stressinghere againthat, in the foreseeablefuture, relianceon the organizedsector, for generationof employment, is not an answergiven its almost negligible employment elasticity as well as the low base. As the Planning Commission's Special Group on employment generationnoted:' It has been estimated that even it (that is the organised sector) grows at 30 percent per annum over the Tenth Plan, its contributionto total employment will increasehardly,from 2.58 per cent to 3.5 percentof the total employment '(GOI, 2002 p. 10). Also, the frequently repeated hope in the official circles that a step up in economic growth to about 8 percent during the Tenth Plan will do the trick on the employment front is itself misplaced; firstly such a growth is unlikely unless the investment ratio comes close to 40 percent of GDP, and secondly, as mentioned earlier, even if such a growth rate materializes,the unemployment rate may be more than double at the end of the Tenth Plan compared to what it began with. (GOI, 2002, P3). In sum, there is an urgency to address the needs and capabilities of sectors which together account for 92 per cent of country's employment. Outlines of appropriateframeworksfor this purpose and a variety of the relevantdetails have been discussed in recent years by several authors (e.g. Patnaik and Chandrasekhar, 1995, Chandrasekharand Ghosh, 2002; among offers). Unfortunately, it is the possibility of exploring and implementing such alternativesthat appearsto have become a victim of the neo-liberaleconomic policy. The much touted TINA (i.e. there is no alternative) argument by neoliberalsis patentlyfallacious;howeverobviouslythe policies do not take shape in a social vaccum and the real issue is that of working towards a sociopolitical context which would be conducive to nurturing the alternative policies.

<
(D

' r

StudiesandPlanning, Nehru PraveenJhais at the Centrefor Economic Jawaharlal New Delhi. University,

57

Social Scientist

0 0

Table 1
Growth rates of Employment in India in recent years (percent change per annum)
Period 1983 to 1987-88 1987-88 to 1993-94 1993-94 to 1999-2000 Rural 1.36 2.03 0.66 Urban 2.77 3.39 2.27

rcl
u a)

C3

0 O

Source:Chandrasekharand Ghosh (2002, p. 141)

0 z
cy'q South Asia > Sub-SaharanAfrica

Table 2 Labour force in agriculture (% of total)

1965 1970 1980 69.06 66.89 42.35 .. 66.21 26.33 3.60 1990 67.33 62.15 32.21 19.03 53.89 23.30 2.90 19.12 48.52 24.42 2.90 1995 64.57 1997

Middle East & North Africa LatinAmerica & Caribbean East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia United States

Low Income Middle Income LowerMiddle Income Upper Middle Income High Income

78 57 66 45 16

75 40 39 42 11

73 38 35 29 9

68 28 30 25 5

60.99

62

43.47 19.68 4.53 -

Developing Countries Developed Countries World 59

76 13 55

68 11 53

61 10 49 39.89

57 8 46

Sotlrce: World Bank. World Development Indicators,2000; World Bank. World Development Report,

1986; FAO Statistics Website under the Population Domain

Table 3 Some Population and Labour Statistics relating to Agriculture (AllFigures %) are
1970 Shareof agriculturalpopulation in developing countries Shareof agriculturallabour in total labour force in the World Share of female labour labour in total agricultural labour force World Developed countries Developing countries 90.28 84.21 41.13 43.77 40.85 1990 94.50 75.97 42.69 38.38 42.93 2000 96.50 70.62 43.55 36.13 43.83 2010 97.12 62.21 44.16 33.73 44.44

Source:FAO Statistics Website under the Population Domain. Note: AgriculturalPopulation refersto all those who depend on agriculturefor income and sustenance either fully or partially.Agriculturallabour force refersto all the active workersin the agriculturalsector. Number for 2010 are projections based on recent trends.

58

Table 4 Sectoral distribution of labour force in different regions Early 1980s Agriculture Developed countries Transition economies and former USSR South central (excl. India in 1980s) East and Southeast Asia Latin America 7.2 23.4 54.6 57.0 26.5 Industry Services Others Total 32.3 40.1 16.8 18.2 23.3 60.4 35.7 26.5 24.3 48.4 0.1 0.9 2.0 0.6 1.9 100 100 100 100 100 Agriculture 5.8 18.7 55.3 45.3 18.1

Late

Ind

27

29

21

20

Sub saharanAfrica
Middle east and North Africa

75.1
40.6

8.5
20.8

16.4
37.4

0.0
1.3

100
100 21.5

27

Source:KeyIndicators the LabourMarket,ILO,Geneva,2001. of

Ln
'0

Social Scientist

r3

(c2 0

Table 6 Structure of Income and Employment in Selected Countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America (percentage)
COUNTRY YEAR SHARE IN EMPLOYMENT
Agrictilture Industry Services Agriculture

o
-

SHARE IN GDP
Indusiry Services

aN
0
Rep. of Korea 1970 1977 1980 1990 1998 Thailand 1977 1980 1990 1998 Pakistan 1977 1980 1990 1997 Bangladesh 1989 1990 1996 Egypt 1977 1980 1990 1995 Tunisia 1977 1980 1989 1994 Malawi 1977 1980 1990 Kenya 1977 1980

47.6 41.8 34.2 18.3 12.2 73.5 70.8 64 51.3 54.8 54.8 51.1 44.2 64.9 66.4 32 45.6 41.9 39 34 36 33.4 25.8 21.6 50.1 49.2 44.6 84 82 78

17.4 27.5 29 35.1 27.8 8.7 10.3 14 17.7 18.5 18.5 19.8 19 15.4 13 9.6 19.1 21.5 20.7 21.9 31.1 33.4 33.6 34.4 19.5 20.8 23.9 6 7 8

35 30.7 37 46.6 56.6 17.6 18.9 22 31 12.3 26.4 26.6 36.9 14.8 16.2 25 35.3 36.6 40.3 44.1 28.7 29.1 40.6 44 30.5 29.9 31.5 10 11 14.5 27 15 9 6 27 23 17 11 33 30 26 25 44 38 30.6 28 18 17 20 17 17 14 15 47 37 33 35 33 29 35 40 45 43 29 29 32 40 23 25 25 25 14 15 17.4 30 37 29 21 32 35 33 32 18 19 20 20 21 16 38 45 46 51 44 48 51 49 44 45 49 50 41 46 52 42 45 53 59 51 48 53 53 35 44 46 45 47 55

z
-

60

1998

Issues Relating to Employment

Table 6 Structure of Income and Employment in Selected Countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America (percentage)
COUNTRY YEAR SHAREIN EMPLOYMENT
Agriculture Industry Services Agriculture

(D =

(D

SHAREIN GDP
Industry Services

Chile

1977 1980 1990 1998

18.4 16.3 19 14.4 26.8 22.8 24.1 60.5 58.6 50.1 48.6 35.5 36.8 26.1 21

24.1 23.7 25.2 25.5 22.1 22.7 20 15.5 16.9 16.7 21.1 16.4 15.6 22.6 18.2

57.2 60 55.5 60 49.3 54.5 55.8 24 24.5 33.2 30.3 47.5 47.2 50.7 61.8

10 7 N/A 8 13 10 14 32 31 23 23 9 8 5 7

29 37 N/A 35 33 39 36 27 25 24 30 37 15 46 35

61 55 N/A 57 54 51 50 41 44 53 47 54 55 49 58

Brazil

1985 1990 1997

Honduras

1977 1980 1990 1998

Jamica

1977 1980 1990 1998

Note: The countriestakenareamong the two bestand two worstperformers froni Asia, Africaand LatinAmerica, each in terms of per capita income (PPP) calculatedby the WorldBank (1998) and for which data are easily available. Data regardingemploymentare from yearbookof Labour Statistics published by ILO and data Reports publishedby the WorldBatik.Here regarding growthand structure GDP arefrom WorldDevelopment of Agriculture includes hunting, forestry and fishing. Industry comprises mining, quarrying, manufacturing, and hotels, transport,storage, electricity,gas, water and construction.Servicesectorincludestrade, restaurants commnunication, financing, insurance,real estate businessservices,community,socialand personalservices.

Table 5 Employment Elasticity of Manufacturing Production (Based on ILO data)

1980-90 Indonesia South Korea Taiwan India France Japan United Kingdom Chandrasekhar(2002). Source: -0.005 0.003 -0.003 -0.59 0.003 0.003 0.007 1990-95 0.001 -0.0001 0.004 0.004 -0.02 -0.005 -0.03

61

Social Scientist

or (N
u

a) 0

Table 7 Levels of Industrialization in the Third World and the Developed Countries, 1750-1990 (United Kingdom in 1900=100)
Year Third World Total Developed Countries 34 47 73 143 481 863 1260 1560 2870 8430 9910 12090 Per Capita Third World Developed Countries 8 8 1 16 35 55 71 81 135 315 437 412

1750 0

93 99 112 83 60 70 98 122 200 927 1320 2480

7 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 5 14 19 29

z
ry')
->a

1800 1830 1860 1900 1913 1928 1938 1953 1973 1980 1990 Source: Bairoch (1993)

Table 8 Rates of Unemployment in Different Regions of the World, 1990-2000

1990 Developed Countries Europe Japan United States Latin America and the Caribbean Asia and the Pacific Transition Economies Middle East and North Africa 6.1 7.7 2.14 6.0 5.7 4.0 .. 7.1 2000 6.2 8.5 4.8 4.1 7.1 (1999) 4.5 (1999) 11.9 ...

Source:: Key Indicators of the LabourMarket 1999 ( ILO,2001)

62

Issues Relating to Employment

Table 9 All India Farm and Non-Farm Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS) Employment Growth Rates (Persons): 1972-73 to 1983, 1980-81 to 1993-94 to 1999-2000: Rural, Urban, and Total
Sector
1972-73 to 1983

-u
(3 Ay)
(D :3 Pi

Rural
1980-81 to 1993-94 1993-94 to 1999-00 1972-73 to 1983

Urban
1980-81 to 1993-94 1993-94 to 1999-00 1972-73 to 1983

Total
1980-81 to 1993-94 1993-94 to 1999-00

Agriculture Non-Agriculture All Sectors Source:Bhalla (2003)

1.59 4.54 2.12

1.38 3.37 1.77

0.20 2.34 0.68

3.91 4.12 4.15

1.79 3.50 3.27

-3.39 2.98 2.07

1.68 4.32 2.48

1.40 3.44 2.30

0.06 2.69 1.05

Table 10 All India UPSS Employment Growth Rates by Sector and Subsector, Rural, Urban and Total: 1972-73 to 1983, 1980-81 to 1993-94, and 1993-94 to 1999-2000.
Sector
1972-73
to

Rural
1980-81
to

Urban
1993-94
to to

Total
1993-94
to

1972-73
to

1980-81
to

1972-73
to

1980-81
to

1993-94
to

1983

1993-94

1999-00

1983

1993-94

1999-00

1983

1993-94

1999-00

Agriculture Agriculture Mining and quarrying Manufacturing Electricityetc. Construction Trade etc. Transport Services All Sectors

1.59 1.59

1.38 1.38

0.20 0.20

3.91 3.91

1.79 1.79

-3.39 -3.39

1.68 1.68

1.40 1.40

0.06 0.06

5.13 4.38 9.00 3.99 5.34 7.05 3.82 2.07

4.32 2.34 5.00 5.19 3.62 5.09 3.38 1.77

-2.88 1.57 -6.35 6.95 3.74 7.35 -0.80 0.68

5.51 4.18 7.29 5.45 4.27 4.91 3.34 4.09

4.98 2.13 4.59 6.52 3.61 3.16 4.18 3.27

-4.01 1.54 -4.52 6.15 7.95 3.83 -0.58 2.30

5.26 4.28 7.94 4.55 4.73 5.61 3.55 2.43

4.54 2.24 4.75 5.74 3.62 3.85 3.83 2.07

-3.27 1.56 -5.25 6.61 6.20 5.28 0.67 1.05

Source:Bhalla (2003)

63

Social Scientist

gn

References and WorldHistory: Bairoch, Paul (1993) - Economics Mythsand Paradoxes,Harvester

Whetsheaf.

?-4
u al)

C) z r,4 0

Baran,P, (1957) - ThePoliticalEconomy Growth, Monthly ReviewPress,New York. of Bhalla, Sheila (2003) - 'Employment and Employment Policy: Issues and Evidence', Mimeo, Institute for Human Development, New Delhi. Chadha, G K and PP Sahu (2002)- 'Post -Reform Setbacks in Rural Employment: issues that Need FurtherScrutiny' Economicand Political Weekly May 25-31. Chandrasekhar,C.P. & J. Ghosh (2002)- The Market that Failed : A Decade of New LiberalEconomicReformsin India, Left World, New Delhi. Chandrasekhar,C.P. (2002) - Employment Expansionand Globalisationin the AsiaPacific, Mimeo, CESP,JNU. Darity, W., Jr. (1993) - LabourEconomics:Problemsin Analyzing LabourMarkets, KluwerAcademic Publishers, Boston. Food and AgriculturalOrganisation (2003) - Websiteunderthe PopulationDomain. Government of India (2002) Reportof the Special Groupon TargetingTen Million Opportunities year overthe TenthPlan Period,Planning commission, Employment per New Delhi. Government of India (2001)- Reportof the TaskForceon Employment Opportunities, Planning Commission, New Delhi. International Labour Organisation (2002)- Global Employment Agenda, International LabourOffice, Geneva. Geneva. InternationalLabourOrganisation(2001) KeyIndicators theLabour Market, of Labour India,VikasPublishingHouse, New Delhi. in Jha,PraveenK (1997) - Agricultural Keyssar, A. (1986) - Out of Work : The First Century of Unemployment in New York CambridgeUniversity Press. Massachnsetts, Keyssar,A. (1993) 'LabourEconomics and Unemployment: An Historian's Perspective' in WilliamDarity,Jr (ed) (1993). Marglin, S. and J. Schor (eds) (1990) - The GoldenAge of Capitalism,Oxford. Patnaik, Prabhatand C.P. Chandrasekhar (1995) 'Indian Economy under structural Vol.30, No.47. Adjustment', Economicand Political Weekly, Sen, Abhijit and Praveen Jha - 'Rural Employment: Patterns and Trends from the National Sample Survey',mimeo, CESP,JNU, New Delhi. Sen, Abjijit (1996)- 'Economics Reforms, Employment and Poverty: Trends and Vol.31, No.35 Options', Economicand Political Weekly, Solow, R.M. (1980)' On the Theories of Unemployment', American Economic Review (March). 64 Stiglitz, J.E. (2001) - 'Employment, social Justice, and Societal well-being', Keynote ForumNovember2001, Geneva. speechto ILO GlobalEmpowerment

Z
-

0 >

Issues Relating to Employment

Summers, L.H. (1990) - Understanding Unemployment, Cambridge, MIT. Sundaram, K (2001) - Employment -Unemployment situation in the Nineties: Some Results from the NSS 5th Round Survey', Economic and Political Weekly, March -17. World Bank (1986) - World Development Report, Washington. World Bank (2000) - World Development Indicators, Washington.

Lockouts in India Editedby Ruddar Datt This book is perhaps the firstattemptto study the menacingproblemof lockoutsin Indiawhich has in plaguedindustries the last threedecades. Besides givingan overviewof lockoutsfrom1961 to 1997, the authorhas made a special studyof lockoutsin India.He suggests thatthe causes for lockoutsput forwardby the Indiangovernmentin the LabourYearBook as well as Labourin West Bengal (a of are publication the West Bengalgovernment) nottenablesince the data is based on the employer's The major causes of lockouts,he suggests are:downsizingof labourand casualization, perception only. increasingworkloadof workers,absence of a long-term perspective by employers, failureto bring abouttechnologicalupgradation, with pre-occupation short-term profits,inefficient management,interfamilydisputes, indisciplineand violence to some extent and cost reductionduringperiod of low demand. Ruddar Dattis presentlyassociated withthe Institute HumanDevelopment,New Delhi,as a Visiting of Professor.Earlier taughtEconomicsfor35 years at the University Delhi.He was the Presidentof he of the IndianEconomicAssociationand IndianSociety of Labour Economicsin 1991. ISBN81-7304-499-6 2003 Rs. 500 Royal8v0 184p. Re-Searching Indian Women Editedby VijayaRamaswamy DetlefKantowsky's in Buddishisten Indienheute (1999) brought a German. to Thisbook is a partof the and ongoingprojectby women to writethemselves back intothe historical social canvas. The present collectionof essays takes pridein being a partof this vitalprocess of correcting gender imbalancesin centuriesold patriarchal structures. However,in manyways, these essays also go beyondthe agenda of frompatriarchal texts inwhicheven femalevoices echo salvage or retrieval registers.Besides re-opening the males, the authorsalso explorethe subjectivity womenthrough mode of fiction,art,the media of the and oraltraditions. teaches History the Jawaharlal at NehruUniversity. majorpublications Her include VijayRamaswamy Textiles Weavers Medieval and in SouthIndia and in Women Virasaivism (1985);Divinity Deviance: (1996) and Walking Naked:Women, in articles SocietyandSpirituality SouthIndia (1997).She has also published on economic history, women'shistory,Indianfolklore and religiousstudies in Indianand international journals. ISBN81-7304-496-1 2003 Rs. 750 Demy8vo 380p. MANOHAR PUBLISHERS & DISTRIBUTORS 4753/23 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 Phones: 3262796, 3260774, 3284848, 3289100 Fax: 3265162 * email: manbooks@vsnl.com

65