Advertisement

Is Occupational Transformation in India Pro-Poor? Analysis of Rural Labour Market in the Reform Period

Chapter

Abstract

Dual-sector model propounded by Lewis (Manchester Sch 22(2):39–191, (1954) and Kuznets (Am Econ Rev 63(6):247–258, 1973) holds that with the economic development workers move from farm to off-farm sector. The off-farm occupation diversification contributes to household/individual well-being as well as in overall economic growth and development through increase in productivity. In India, occupational structure remained stagnant for a long period and non-farm diversification of occupation started only in the 1980s, the rate of which has been faster in the recent period. However, the positive implication of the diversification is not satisfactory, particularly in rural area. Based on the NSS data, analysis in the chapter shows that in rural area farm employment is still important as around 65% of workers were dependent on agriculture for livelihood in 2011–12. Non-farm employment generated is mostly casual and is largely driven by the construction sector in the urban vicinity. Even though non-farm employment has been poverty reducing, given the increase in the unskilled casual employment, but the uncertainty of earnings associated with casual employment sheds doubt on stability of upward economic mobility. It has not had much positive effect on investment in human capital formation at the household level. Through multinomial econometric model, determinant of access to various occupation in rural has been examined. Mean predicted probability estimated out of multinomial model shows mix trend in access to various occupations in the reform period for 1993–94, 2004–05 and 2011–12. At the same time, caste and education are still strong determinants of most sought after regular employment. Interestingly, education remained as a strong tool of transformation since those better educated have better employment opportunity, irrespective of the caste.

Keywords

Casualization Economic mobility Human capital Occupational diversification Rural transformation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants of seminar at CSRD, JNU, held on 12–13 March 2016.

References

  1. Abraham V (2009) Employment growth in rural India: distress-driven? Econ Pol Weekly 44(16):97–104Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee A, Newman AF (1993) Occupational choices and the process of development. J Pol Econ 101(2):274–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker GS (1964) Human capital. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker G (1993) The economic way of looking at behavior. J Polit Econ 101(3):385–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blau PM, Gustad JW, Jessor R, Pames HS, Willock RC (1956) Ocupational choice: a conceptual framework. ILR Rev 9(4):531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haggblade S (2010) The rural non-farm economy: prospects for growth and poverty reduction. World Dev 38:1429–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Himanshu Joshi B, Lanjouw P (2016) Non-farm diversification, inequality and mobility in Palanpur. Econ Pol Weekly 51(26 & 27):43–51Google Scholar
  8. Himanshu, Lanjouw P, Murgai P, Stern N (2013) Non-farm diversification, poverty economic mobility and income inequality: a case study in village India. Policy research working paper 6451, World BankGoogle Scholar
  9. Kijima Y, Lanjouw P (2005) Economic diversification and rural poverty in India. Ind J Labour Econ 48(2):349–373Google Scholar
  10. Kumar S (2016) Agrarian transformation and the new rurality in Western Uttar Pradesh. Econ Pol Weekly 51(26 & 27):61–71Google Scholar
  11. Kuznets S (1973) Modern economic growth: findings and reflections. Am Econ Rev 63(6):247–258Google Scholar
  12. Lanjouw P, Murgai R (2008) Poverty decline, agricultural wages and non-farm employment in rural India. Policy research working paper 4858, World BankGoogle Scholar
  13. Lanjouw P, Shariff A (2004) Rural non-farm employment in India: access, incomes and poverty impact. Econ Pol Weekly 39(40):4429–4446Google Scholar
  14. Lewis WA (1954) Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. Manchester Sch 22(2):39–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Macmillian MS, Rodrik D (2011) Globalisation, structural change and productivity growth. Working paper 17143, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  16. NSSO (2014) Employment and Unemployment situation in India. Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Government of India. New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  17. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty first century. Harvard Business School Press, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Ranis G, John CHF (1961) A theory of economic development. Am Econ Rev 51(4):533–565Google Scholar
  19. Reddy B (2015) Changes in intergenerational occupational mobility in India: evidence from national sample surveys, 1983–2005. World Dev 76:329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schultz TW (1980) The economic of being poor. J Pol Econ 88(4):639–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tiwari S (2016) Public works and rural labour market: impact on poverty and inequality. Unpublished thesis submitted to CSRD, JNUGoogle Scholar
  22. Todaro MP (1969) A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. Am Econ Rev 59(1):138–148Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Giri Institute of Development StudiesICSSR Research InstitutionLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations