1 / 11

GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY INTER-RELATIONS Some results from India

GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY INTER-RELATIONS Some results from India. K. Sundaram Delhi School of Economics University of Delhi India. I. THE EMPLOYMENT-POVERTY INTERFACE. Results from Probit Analysis:

nura
Download Presentation

GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY INTER-RELATIONS Some results from India

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY INTER-RELATIONSSome results from India K. Sundaram Delhi School of Economics University of Delhi India

  2. I. THE EMPLOYMENT-POVERTY INTERFACE Results from Probit Analysis: • POVERTY-REDUCING EFFECTS OF HIGHER EARNER-STRENGTH (WPR) IN THE HOUSEHOLD AND OF LARGER NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN THE WEEK • CETERIS PARIBUS, HIGHER THE RATIO OF FEMALE WORKERS IN TOTAL WORKERS IN THE HOUSEHOLD, THE HIGHER IS THE PROBABILITY OF THE HOUSEHOLD BEING POOR

  3. POVERTY-DRIVEN WORK-PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN IN POOR HOUSEHOLDS • IN POOR HOUSEHOLDS FEMALE WORKER-POPULATION RATIO SAME OR HIGHER THAN IN NON-POOR HOUSEHOLDS, DESPITE: • Higher child-dependency burden • Higher child-woman ratio

  4. Table 1: Child-Dependency and Child-Woman Ratios and Female Worker-Population Ratios in Poor and Non-Poor Households by Rural-Urban Location: All-India, 1999-2000CDRs, CWRs and FWPRs

  5. IS UNDEREMPLOYMENT THE PROBLEM? • 75 PERCENT OF RURAL WORKERS IN POOR HOUSEHOLDS WERE ‘AT WORK’ FOR 300 OR MORE DAYS IN THE YEAR AND ARE UNEMPLOYED FOR 12-DAYS IN THE YEAR • EVEN CASUAL LABOURERS IN AGRICULTURE (WITH ACCOUNT FOR 25 PERCENT OF THE WORKING POOR) WORK FOR 272 DAYS IN THE YEAR. THEY ARE UNEMPLOYED FOR 39 DAYS IN THE YEAR • IN RESPECT OF EACH AND ALL THE CATEGORY OF WORKERS, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN THE YEAR BY THE WORKERS IN POOR & NON-POOR HOUSEHOLDS IS QUITE SMALL: ONLY 2 DAYS FOR CASUAL LABOURERS IN AGRICULTURE

  6. Table 2: Average Number of Days at Work and Unemployment – During the Year of Workers in Poor and Non-Poor Households by Broad Activity-Status in Rural Areas: All-India, 1999-2000

  7. II. GROWTH-EMPLOYMENT INTER-FACE . Focus on Employment Quality: • EMPLOYMENT-ELASTICITY & GROWTH IN LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY • PRODUCTIVITY-GROWTH: BASIS FOR SUSTAINABLE RISE IN REAL WAGES IN A MARKET ECONOMY • LOW RATHER THAN HIGH EMPLOYMENT ELASTICITY IN INDIVIDUAL SECTORS REQUIRED. • LABOUR ABSORPTION THROUGH FASTER GROWTH

  8. II.GROWTH-EMPLOYMENT INTER-FACE(Contd...) Assessing Employment Quality: • PROBLEM IN RESPECT OF SELF EMPLOYMENT • LOCATION IN NON-POOR HOUSEHOLDS AS AN INDICATOR OF GOOD QUALITY EMPLOYMENT • SHIFT OF FOCUS ALTERS ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN INDIA IN THE 1990S

  9. Table 3: Average Annual Increments in Self-Employed Work Force: 1993-94 – 1999-2000

  10. A MEASURE OF (EX-POST) INTEGRABILITY THE MEASURE : PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN POVERTY INDICATOR(S) FOR THE REFERENCE GROUP RELATIVE TO THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE ITN THE INDICATOR(S) FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS EXAMPLE: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN HEADCOUNT RATIO ( 1993-94 – 1999-2000 ) FOR ALL RURAL HOUSEHOLDS : (-)15.38 FOR SCHEDULED CASTE HOUSEHOLDS : (-) 16.00 FOR AGRICULTURAL LABOUR HOUSEHOLDS : (-) 15.73 FOR SCHEDULED TRIBE HOUSEHOLDS : (-) 1.62 MEASURE OF (EX-POST) INTEGRABILITY : SCHEDULED CASTE HOUSEHOLDS = AGRICULTURAL LABOUR HOUSEHOLDS = SCHEDULED TRIBE HOUSEHOLDS =

  11. A MEASURE OF (QUALITY – ADJUSTED) EMPLOYMENT ELASTICITY : INDIA 1934-1994 - 1999-2000

More Related