Abstract
Bringing together the results of the NSS 66th Round Employment-Unemployment Survey and the Provisional Population Totals of the 2011 Population Census, we examine the inter-play of demographic change, decisions on schooling and participation in the labour force, and the changes in the economy in shaping the size and structure of employment and the resultant impacts on labour productivity, real wages and poverty among those inside and outside the labour force in India over the period 2005–2010. We also offer a brief discussion on some issues in the measurement of poverty in India. A sluggish growth in the total number of workers on UPSS alongside an absolute reduction in the size of female workforce, and in the number of workers in agriculture and unorganized manufacturing are among the key results of our analysis. On the positive side we find a strong growth in employment in the organised manufacturing sector and in the number and share of regular wage salary workers; and, a strong growth in labour productivity and in real wages. We also find an across the board reduction in the proportion and count of the working poor between 2005 and 2010. These improvements in quality of employment must temper our disappointment with the small growth in the size of the workforce.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The use of LFPR/WFPR for all-ages would be appropriate provided the age-distributions from the NSS Employment-Unemployment Surveys are at least broadly in line with those from the Census or Census-based population projections (see Sundaram 2007b).
- 2.
- 3.
The central burden of Professor Srinivasan’s comment was that there was no automatic presumption that the “excess” (of Census—count over the Survey-based estimate of) population had the same labour force characteristics as those captured by the survey.
- 4.
The support is only partial because the state-specific level and ratio estimates are still based on the survey design and multipliers that are based on population estimates of (typically) an earlier (rather than the current) Population Census—in the case of rural areas—and on the latest Urban Frame Survey (UFS) for the urban areas. These have not been altered to reflect the results of the 2011 Population Census. Also, if part of the explanation for the divergence between the Census & NSS Survey estimates of population arise from possible inadequate capture in the Survey of large households (say, with 7 or more members), or due to any other reason, we cannot adjust for the same.
- 5.
These are the direct survey-based estimates of all-India age-specific SPRs rather than those based on an aggregation of state-level estimates (with census-based population shares as weights).
- 6.
For the Agricultural Year 2009–10, the average daily earnings of adult rural women working as casual labour in MGNREGA public works was Rs 87.20, and, for casual labour in other (non-MGNREGA) public works was Rs 86.11. In contrast, the average daily earnings for rural female casual labourers in all other activities was only Rs 68.94 or, about 20% lower than the average daily earnings in public works. See NSS Report No: 537 (GOI 2011).
- 7.
In our joint paper on the Working Poor, Professor Tendulkar and I argued as below:
Raising the productivity of labour, defined by gross value-added per worker in real terms in any given activity or sector, requires that the increments to the number of workers employed in that activity or sector are less than proportional to the increments in gross value-added. In the economist’s jargon the widely used gross elasticity of employment with respect to growth (in GVA) will be less than 1. Now, given the distance yet to be travelled in terms of reaching satisfactory levels of labour productivity and returns to labour tied to productivity in major sectors of the economy, the policy makers would need to plan not only for elasticity of employment with respect to GVA that is less than 1 but also for scenarios with declining employment elasticity in individual sectors. There are also several sectors where the number of workers should decrease: the over-sized bureaucracy and over-manned public sector units across a wide-swathe of industries and the, over-crowded low productivity sectors with considerable underemployment like agriculture and lower-end personal services are the obvious examples (Sundaram and Tendulkar 2002, emphasis added).
- 8.
The Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty set up by the Planning Commission had Professor Tendulkar as the Chairman and Professor R. Radhakrishna & Dr. Suranjan Sengupta as members who had signed the report. Regrettably, one has seen little in the form of a response to the criticisms of the report from the members of the committee—especially since Suresh was no more there to defend the position of the committee.
- 9.
This Expert Group, with Dr. C. Rangarajan as chairman, has as its members Dr. S. Mahendra Dev, Director IGIGDR, Dr. Mahesh Vyas, MD & CEO of CMIE, Dr. K.L. Dutta, formerly adviser, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission, and, myself. Needless to say, the views presented here are those made in my personal capacity and should in no way be seen as reflecting the views of other Members of the Expert Group.
- 10.
The case of private expenditure on health insurance is, strictly speaking, a part of financing strategy of the household to meet such contingent liabilities as and when they arise.
- 11.
The improvements in mortality/morbidity indicators that have been realized over the past two decades or so cannot be fully understood without factoring-in the increase in public expenditure in this sector. Also important has been the growth in the expenditures in the provision of a range of healthcare services by non-profit institutions serving households—NPISH in National Accounts terminology. At least a part of the explanation for the growing divergence between the National Accounts estimate of Private Final Consumption Expenditure and the NSS estimates of household consumer expenditure over the same period is tied to this last-mentioned factor.
References
Deaton, A., & Dreze, J. (2009). Food and nutrition in India: Facts and interpretations. Economic and Political Weekly, 44, 42–65.
Government of India, Annual Survey of Industries, 2004–05, Volume 1; 2009–10, Volume 1, http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/asi/ASI_main.htm?status=1&menu_id=88
Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Central Statistics Office. (2012). National Accounts Statistics 2012 (New Delhi, May 2012).
Government of India, National Sample Survey Organisation. (2006) Report No. 515 (61/10/1): Employment and Unemployment Situation in India 2004–05, NSS 61st Round, (July 2004–June 2005) (September 2006).
Government of India, National Sample Survey Organisation. (2011). NSS Report No. 537 (66/10/1), Employment and Unemployment Situation in India 2009–10, NSS 66th Round, (July 2009–June 2010) (November 2011).
Government of India, Office of the Registrar General of India. (2011). Census of India 2011 Provisional Population Totals, Paper 1 of 2011, India Series 1.
Government of India, Office of the Registrar General of India. (2011). Census of India 2011, Provisional Population Totals, Paper 2 of 2011, Rural-Urban Distribution, India Series 1.
Government of India, Office of the Registrar General of India (2012), Report No. 1 of 2012, Sample Registration System, Statistical Report 2010.
Government of India, Planning Commission. (2009). Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (November 2009).
Government of India, Planning Commission. (2012). Office Order Setting up of the Expert Group to review the Methodology for Measurement of Poverty (June 2012).
Government of India, Registrar General of India. (2012). SRS-based Abridged Life Tables 2003–07 to 2006–10.
Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. Manchester School, 22, 139–191.
Srinivasan, T. N. (1992). Under-nutrition: Concepts, measurement and policy implications. In S. Osmani (Ed.), Nutrition and Poverty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sukhatme, P. V. (1982). Measurement of Undernutrition. Economic and Political Weekly, 17, 2000–2016.
Sundaram, K. (2003). On identification of households below poverty line in BPL census 2002: Some comments on the proposed methodology. Economic and Political Weekly, 38, 896–901.
Sundaram, K. (2007a). Growth of work opportunities in India, 1983–99/2000. In A. Vaidyanathan, and K. L. Krishna, (Eds.), Institutions and markets in India’s development, Oxford.
Sundaram, K. (2007b). Employment and poverty in India, 2000–2005. Economic and Political Weekly, 42, 3121–3131.
Sundaram, K. (2012). Suresh Tendulkar on poverty, employment and public policy: some thoughts. Paper presented at the 48th The Indian Econometric Society (TIES) conference, Pondicherry, March 1–3, 2012.
Sundaram, K., & Tendulkar, S. D. (1993). Poverty in Asia and the Pacific: Conceptual issues and national approaches to measurement. Economic Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific, 44, 42–58.
Sundaram, K., & Tendulkar, S. D. (2002). The working poor in India: Employment-poverty linkages and employment policy options. Issues in Employment as Poverty Discussion Paper no. 4, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Sundaram, K., & Tendulkar, S. D. (2004). Poor in the Indian labour force: Scenario in the 1990’s. Economic and Political Weekly, 39, 5125–5132.
Suryanarayana, M. H. (2011). Expert group on poverty: Confusion worse confounded. Economic and Political Weekly, 46, 36–39.
Acknowledgments
I owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor T.N. Srinivasan for his comments on my presentation of an earlier version at the Conference that has resulted in an entire new Sect. (4.14.1) and on this version as well. My grateful thanks are due to Professors K.L. Krishna and V. Pandit for their valuable comments. The usual disclaimers apply.
I am also deeply grateful to Mr Sanjeev Sharma, Senior System Administrator, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics (CDE) for excellent Programming support, to my former Student and colleague Ms. Vineeta Sharma for her research support and to Mr Rajesh Papnai, Senior Office Assistant, CDE for his untiring secretarial assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annexure Tables
Annexure Tables
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sundaram, K. (2017). Some Recent Trends in Population, Employment and Poverty in India: An Analysis. In: Krishna, K., Pandit, V., Sundaram, K., Dua, P. (eds) Perspectives on Economic Development and Policy in India. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3150-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3150-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3149-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3150-2
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)