The draft of the 12th Five Year Plan contains a table numbered 13.3 that presents what appears to be bad news on three different fronts: One, manufacturing lost five million jobs between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Two, agriculture employment fell by 14 million. Three, total employment grew by only three million in the five-year period, and much of this may be an increase in marginal workers if data from the Census are to be believed. True to the instincts of the powers that be when the news is not good, they call for a fresh round of data collection. This is precisely what the National Sample Survey Organisation did last year, and it should now be releasing the updated data soon. But other interesting and unexpected insights keep cropping up - for instance, the data from the Registrar General of India are also showing that the work participation rate for women has decreased significantly in rural areas in the 2000s. And though it has increased in urban areas, the aggregate figure shows a fall.
Having been to many "drawing room" events in the last few weeks, I take great pride in replaying some fine arguments on employment conditions in the country.
Agriculture employment is down largely because cultivators have sold their land and become property brokers to help other cultivators sell their land. Since property brokers do nothing but sit in their chairs, the number of people who are classified as working has, therefore, been reduced by nine million during the 2000s according to the Census 2011. But there is another angle to this. Farmers' children today are better educated than their fathers and uncles. These youth figured what everyone knows - farming is quite a tough and low-paying profession compared to writing code, making chai or selling property.
Moreover, all that education also helped them figure out that no matter how much fertiliser you put in, the soil cannot yield that much more because the land area per farm is too small. And so, just as in the case of women, lower agriculture employment may actually be a more honest and practical reflection of the reality. But, since the rural cultivator vote bank is easier to deal with than the urban slum vote bank, some fear that the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government will try to figure out how to increase agriculture employment. The solution, according to a law ministry official who is putting together a draft, lies in banning property dealers in rural areas. No property will then be sold and employment numbers would be better.
Women's work participation rates have fallen, the "drawing room" argument goes, because households are celebrating their greater incomes, and women are celebrating their newly-found empowerment by staying at home. Husbands who were also concerned about workplace security and romance and similar problems may have further contributed to this decision. Some younger women, after watching recent TV serials and movies, also figured that it is better not to work but attend school and college, where you can participate in dandia and disco. All of these have combined to reduce rural women's propensity to work.
Since there is an unstated objective that to achieve a developed country status, it is imperative that women work for income, the UPA government needs to reserve jobs for women under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act; give an additional income subsidy; or additionally tax their husbands/sons/fathers. It is also being debated that since empowerment is the cause of the problem, women's disempowerment may actually solve the problem. It is rumoured that the National Advisory Council may soon come up with a policy paper on this account.
Manufacturing employment is another interesting story. A great conspiracy was hatched by India's industrialists and business owners. They convinced everyone in the government and his nephew that manufacturing employment is low because people are not employable - that is, because they don't have skills. A new term called unemployability was coined to explain the problem. While the old fogies in the government were going around hopping from one conference to another workshop talking about this issue, the same businesses were busy sending the same so-called unemployable youth to other countries by setting up body-shopping businesses. The government also loved the unemployability argument because no one attends conferences on lack of power and infrastructure anymore, or is willing to sit on such committees and working groups.
Meanwhile, the workers have already figured these out: there is limited power to run manufacturing plants, and limited roads to set up appropriate logistics networks; there are more inspectors than workers in many districts, and even if a job exists, the raise will not occur as frequently. And, therefore, it is best to work in services rather than manufacturing. A very worried National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council and the industry ministry are reportedly going to create a compulsory Gandhi Parivar Rashtriya Audyogik Seva Dal, where, after schooling, everyone will have to work compulsorily before they can get their very own Aadhaar number.
According to the government, 470 million-odd people are employed in India. Who are these people? The government has a special affinity for women and children - and these estimates include both those who are not supposed to be working (adolescents), and those who don't have a primary job but do something on the side. Examples include a child helping out in the family's shop after school (where primary occupation is student but secondary occupation is work ), or a homemaker collecting some firewood to sell (primary occupation homemaker but secondary firewood seller). All of these are included in the analysis. Consequently, in 2009-10, about 15 to 20 per cent of the people that the government considers to be employed are actually just helping out their families - this is not wholesome employment.
The character of employment is changing in India - other options are becoming better; educational options are improving; and life is becoming more comfortable for many. Men, women and children are, therefore, more likely to make lifestyle choices that may not be captured in unidimensional measures, such as work participation rates or manufacturing employment.
Which gets me to the final point. Table 13.3 does not mention it, but there are too many people past retirement-age working in the government. There are 70-year olds, 75-year olds, 80-year olds and, if the Bharatiya Janata Party were to have its way, even 90-year olds.
The author is Director, Indicus Analytics
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
