Women Work

Women’s Employment
in India
What do Recent NSS Surveys of
Employment and Unemployment Show?
Vikas Rawal
Partha Saha
SSER Monograph 15/1

Women’s Employment in
India
What do Recent NSS Surveys of Employment
and Unemployment Show?
Vikas Rawal
Partha Saha
Published by
Society for Social and Economic Research
S3/209, Saraswati Towers, Sector D6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070, India
E-mail: [email protected]
©SSER, 2015
ISBN: 978-81-937148-2-9
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information

product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the
Society for Social and Economic Research (SSER) or other institutions with which
authors may be affiliated. The views expressed in this monograph are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of SSER.
SSER encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this mono-
graph. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded
and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-
commercial products or services, provided that authors and SSER are appropriately
acknowledged, and SSER’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not
implied in any way.
1 Introduction
Employment trends in India, and in particular, trends of women’s employment,
have been an issue of considerable discussion in scholarly writings over the last few
years. This literature is primarily based on results from the recent rounds of National
Sample Survey (NSS) Organization’s large-sample Employment and Unemployment
Surveys. Some of these results have been counter-intuitive and have generated
considerable controversy particularly on the question of women’s employment.
The 2004-05 (61st round) survey showed a huge employment growth over
the previous large-sample round (55th round for 1999-2000) fuelled mainly by an
increase in employment of women (Ghosh, 2009; Ghosh and Chandrasekhar, 2007).
At a time when there was widespread criticism of neoliberal policies of the national
government and a great outcry about the agrarian crisis caused by it, these results
came as a shot in the arm for proponents of economic reforms. Critics, on the
other hand, argued that expansion of employment was primarily distress-driven as
opportunities for wage employment had not grown (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh,
2007; Ghosh and Chandrasekhar, 2007; Raveendran and Unni, 2007). Neetha
and Mazumdar (2011) pointed out that the increase in self-employment of women
between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 was in fact primarily an increase in what is called
“unpaid family worker” in NSS surveys. They argued that rather than a positive
trend, this reflected a shift of female workforce from paid wage employment to
unpaid family work as a helper. Abraham (2009) and Himanshu (2011) argued that
a greater proportion of women started working on their own farms to hold up falling
household incomes in agriculture in a period marked by agrarian crisis.
These explanations were not particularly satisfactory as there was no cor-
roborative evidence – either from large-scale farm management surveys or from
primary data-based studies – to suggest that there had been either an increase in
labour absorption in agriculture or a relative shift towards greater use of family
labour instead of hired labour. Incomes in agriculture are determined by a host of
factors that are beyond the control of the household. These include agro-ecological
constraints as well as economic factors like input and output prices, cost and
availability of credit, and availability of basic infrastructure. Given that availability
of formal-sector credit and public investment to agriculture had declined over this
period, input prices had increased sharply, and agricultural extension systems were
in a state of near collapse, increasing incomes by merely increasing deployment of
female family labour on the farm held no promise.
While the 61st round of NSS survey showed a huge rise in women’s employment,
the 66th round survey (2009-10) showed an even more spectacular fall. Despite the
implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme since 2007,
the 66th round results exposed the hollow claims of an employment-led growth
that were made when the 61st round results came out (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh,
2011). Now, those who had been lauding India’s recent growth experience argued
that the survey results were not reliable because 2009-10 was claimed to be a drought
year and that a major part of the decline in labour force participation among women
decline was because of increased enrolment of girls in schools (Mehrotra et al., 2014;
Rangarajan, Kaul, and Seema, 2011; Rangarajan, Seema, and Vibeesh, 2012). Also,
while the increase in women’s employment in agriculture between 1999-2000 and
In writing this paper, we have benefitted from discussions with Mridul Eapen and Yoshifumi
Usami. We are thankful to both of them. Usual disclaimer applies.
1
2004-05 had been argued by some to be distress-driven, it was now argued that
withdrawal of women from the labour force reflected an upward income mobility
and was thus a positive trend (Abraham, 2013; Mehrotra et al., 2014; Thomas,
2012). In this version of the story, it was asserted (with little evidence) that there
had been an increase in household incomes, and then argued that, with a deeply
entrenched patriarchy, rises in income meant that women did not need to work
any more and withdrew from the labour force (Abraham, 2013). Raveendran and
Kannan (2012) showed that bulk of the women who had dropped out of the labour
force came from among the rural poor households. Using this, they argued that the
data do not suggest that an improvement in economic conditions had led women
to withdraw from the labour force. Neetha and Mazumdar (2011) argued that the
decline in women’s employment between 2004-05 and 2009-10 was in fact a trend
that reflected a continuation of worsening scenario of employment for women and
was a consequence of the policies of economic liberalisation.
Responding to the criticism that the 66th round survey was conducted in a
drought year, NSSO conducted another large-sample survey of Employment and
Unemployment in the 68th round (for reference year 2011-12). Results of this
survey only went on to confirm the findings of the 66th round survey, and showed
that there had indeed been a huge fall in the work participation and labour force
participation rates of women (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh, 2013). While the results
of this survey were broadly in line with the results of the 66th round survey,
policy makers nonetheless sought relief in the slightly higher levels of absolute
employment shown in the latest round (Mehrotra et al., 2014; Rangarajan, Seema,
and Vibeesh, 2012). Both the 66th and the 68th round data have provided weight
to critics who had pointed at the lack of reliability of results from the 61st round.
This paper looks at trends in employment of women between 1999-2000
and 2011-12 using the 55th, 66th and 68th rounds of NSSO’s Employment and
Unemployment Surveys. Given that the results from the 61st round have been
controversial, and no satisfactory explanation has been given for the results being at
odds with other evidence, we decided to exclude the 61st round from the analysis.
In the context of this debate, this paper attempts to seek answers to following
questions.
1. Which are the major economic activities/sectors where women are employed,
and what have been the trends in levels of employment of women in these
sectors?
2. What are the possible factors that explain low and declining levels of women’s
employment?
In addition, the paper looks at women who are primarily engaged in housework.
In NSS surveys, principal status activity of a large proportion of women is recorded
as housework. Most of these women are classified as non-workers, as only a small
proportion of them have a subsidiary activity that may qualify them to be classified
as a worker. However, work done by women principally engaged in housework
is not only economically important indirectly (in terms of the implicit economic
value of the care-work done by them) but also involves activities that are done to
produce/acquire various commodities for use of their households. Work done to
produce/acquire various commodities for household use has direct economic value
for these households.
2
While the NSS Employment-Unemployment Surveys do not collect time-use
data that may be used for quantifying the burden of such economic work on women
who are classified as principally engaged in housework, they do provide data on
how many women are engaged in various such activities. In Section 4, we use these
data to examine the extent to which women classified as principally engaged in
housework are engaged in activities that are not merely care-work but are activities
that are done to acquire various commodities for use of their households?
For all the statistical work in this paper, we have focused on employment
of persons in the age group 15 to 59 years. In many writings on women’s
employment based on NSS data, including on the recent trends, low/declining levels
of employment among women have been explained on account of withdrawal of girl
children from the workforce and increasing school attendance among girls. On the
basis of such data, it has been argued by some scholars that a decline in women’s
employment is not necessarily a cause of worry. By limiting all our statistical work
to the 15-59 years age group, we avoid confusing the trends in employment with
trends in school attendance.
2 Overall Changes in Women’s Employment

Historically, a major limitation of the NSS surveys has been that, given errors of
sampling and shortfall in coverage, the total population size estimated from the
surveys has been consistently lower than the population count and projections from
the Censuses. Over the recent rounds of NSS surveys, this shortfall has increased
slightly. In some recent writings based on these rounds of NSSO employment
unemployment, a pro-rata adjustment is made to increase the number of employed
persons by a factor equal to the ratio of population projections based on the
Censuses and NSSO estimates of the population (Mehrotra et al., 2014; Rangarajan,
Seema, and Vibeesh, 2012). Such a pro-rata adjustment across all sections of the
population (classes, States, for men and women, workers and non-workers) assumes
that the shortfall is purely random and there is no systematic exclusion (because of
non-coverage of some areas or exclusion of unavailable households).1 Such a pro-
rata adjustment inflates the increase in the absolute number of employed persons.
This statistical artefact has been wrongly used by proponents of government policies
to present inflated numbers on the job creation in the economy (Mehrotra et al.,
2014; Rangarajan, Seema, and Vibeesh, 2012).
Given this limitation, in this section and rest of the paper, we use worker to
population ratios (work participation rates) rather than the absolute number of
persons employed to look at trends in employment of women.
Table 1 presents work participation rates for men and women aged 15 to 59
years. For the purpose of this table, any person employed in usual principal or
subsidiary status (UPSS) was considered a worker. Data presented in the Table
1
Similar problems of survey design and implementation also result in a shortfall in total
estimates of consumption of NSS consumer expenditure surveys and the estimates of
aggregate private consumption expenditure estimated in national accounts. Until the early
1990s, it was a practice for the Planning Commission to do a pro-rata adjustment across
classes using a factor corresponding to this aggregate shortfall. D. T. Lakdawala Committee
(1993) discussed this in detail and recommended that the pro-rata adjustment should be
stopped as there was no basis for making a uniform pro-rata adjustment.
3
show that there was a steep decline in work participation rates of persons of 15-
59 years age between 1999-2000 and 2011-12. The decline was entirely driven by
contraction of employment among rural workers, and in particular, among women.
Among rural women of working age, work participation rates declined from 48 per
cent in 1999-2000 to only 39 per cent in 2009-10, and further to only 37 per cent in
2011-12.
It is almost a truism that a smaller proportion of working-age women are in
the workforce than working-age men. But it is noteworthy that the gap between
work participation rates among men and women increased significantly between
1999-2000 and 2011-12. In 1999, work participation rates among women were 44
percentage points lower than work participation rates of men in 1999; the difference
grew to over 48 percentage points in 2011-12.
Collapse of rural employment has particularly hit rural women. This is because
women are primarily – and even more so than men – employed in the rural areas
and they do not have access to even the limited employment opportunities that are
available in the urban economy.
Table 2 shows work participation rates for men and women in different
social groups. The table shows that the Scheduled Tribes have the highest work
participation rates for women, followed by the Scheduled Castes, other castes,
and finally the Muslims. While these ranks were maintained between 1999-2000
and 2011-12, there was a sharp decline in work participation rates of working-age
women in all social groups. For rural adivasi women, work participation rate fell
from 71 per cent in 1999-2000 to 55 per cent in both 2009-10 and 2011-12. For
rural dalit women, work participation rate fell from 53 per cent to about 41 per cent
in 2009-10 and about 40 per cent in 2011-12. For each social group, the decline was
steeper among rural women than among urban women, and steeper among women
than among men.2
Table 3 shows disaggregated data on work participation rates of women
for major economic activities in which women are involved. Table 4 shows
corresponding numbers (in the same economic activities as in Table 3) for men.
Following method was used for classification of workers by industry.
• We used the industry of their principal status activity for workers who were
employed in their usual principal status.
• We used the industry of the subsidiary status activity for workers who
were not employed in their principal status but had a subsidiary status
employment.
Table 3 shows that contraction of employment among rural women was driven
almost entirely by a drop in availability of employment in agriculture. In 1999-
2000, about 41 per cent of rural working-age women were employed in agriculture.
In 2011-12, this had fallen to less than 28 per cent. There was a small increase
in employment of rural women in construction, in manufacture of textiles and
apparels, and in education, but this was too minuscule to compensate for the steep
decline in availability of work for women in agriculture.
In urban areas, the extent and composition of employment remained largely
unchanged. In all, about 21 per cent of urban working-age women were employed.
2
For a more detailed discussion employment trends across social groups, see Neetha (2014)
4
Of them about 12 per cent were employed in the service sector while about 6 per
cent were employed in manufacturing sector.
In contrast, among men, decline in the availability of employment in agriculture
was compensated in part by the expansion of employment in construction (both in
rural and urban areas). Looking at rural and urban areas together, employment
for men declined by 11 percentage points in agriculture and increased by about 6
percentage points in construction between 1999-2000 and 2011-12.
Table 5 shows the proportion of workers in population disaggregated by the type
of employment. Among self-employed persons, NSS surveys make a distinction
between “own account worker”,“employer” and “worked as helper in h.h. enterprise
(unpaid family worker)”. As has been pointed out by Neetha and Mazumdar (2011),
a large proportion of women self-employed persons are categoried as “unpaid family
workers”. It is of note that NSSO does not make any conceptual distinction between
“own account workers” and “worked as helper in h.h. enterprise (unpaid family
worker)”. The instruction manuals for the survey simply list these categories without
providing any explanation for how these are supposed to be distinguished. In such
a context, enumeration of most women as unpaid helpers merely reflects prejudices
of respondents and investigators and do not reflect a considered judgement of the
part played by men and women in the economic activities of the household.3 In
view of this, we have combined all these cateogories into a single category of self-
employed workers. The table shows that there was a sharp decline in availability of
self-employment, particularly in rural areas and particularly for women, between
1999-2000 and 2011-12. Availability of casual wage employment in activities other
than public works also declined sharply. Proportion of persons employed as casual
workers in public works increased slightly, presumably driven by MGNREGA in
rural areas and expansion of employment for men in construction-related activities
in urban areas. This increase was, however, too small in comparison with the
decline in proportion of casual workers in other activities. In all the categories
(men/women, rural/urban), only a minuscule fraction of persons have long-term
salaried employment; there has been no significant increase in this proportion over
the years.
3 Explaining the Decline in Work Participation Rates among

Women
3.1 Employment in Agriculture: Relationship between Land and Women’s Work
As shows in Table 5, between 1999-2000 and 2011-12, there was a sharp decline in
proportion of women who were self-employed. This decline was primarily driven
by a sharp increase in landlessness among rural household, which drove a large
proportion of women who worked on their own lands out of the labour force.
A detailed analysis of the data on agricultural employment shows that there
was a steep decline in both the proportion of working-age persons who were self-
employed in agriculture and the proportion of working-age persons who worked
as wage labourers in agriculture. Table 6 shows that between 1999-2000 and
2011-12, proportion of working-age women who worked on their own household
landholdings declined from 22.8 per cent in 1999-2000 to 17.7 per cent in 2011-
3
See Agarwal (1985) for a detailed discussion of biases in data collection on women’s work.
5
12. On the other hand, proportion of working-age women who worked as wage
labourers in agriculture declined from 18 per cent in 1999-2000 to less than 10 per
cent in 2011-12.
Table 1. Proportion of workers (UPSS) in population, aged 15 to 59 years,

by sex, rural, urban and total, India, 1999-2000, 2009-10 and 2011-12
Sex Rural/Urban 1999-2000 2009-10 2011-12

Men Rural 86.7 83.4 82.0
Men Urban 78.5 78.5 78.4
Men Total 84.3 81.9 80.9
Women Rural 48.3 39.2 37.2
Women Urban 20.9 19.8 21.0
Women Total 41.0 33.6 32.3
Table 2. Proportion of workers (UPSS) in population, aged 15 to 59 years,

by sex and social groups, rural and urban, India, 1999-2000 and 2011-12
Rural/ Social Men Women

Urban group 1999- 2009- 2011- 1999- 2009- 2011-
2000 10 12 2000 10 12
Rural Scheduled caste 87.7 84.7 82.7 53.3 41.3 39.9
Rural Scheduled tribe 90.4 86.6 86.0 71.2 54.9 55.0
Rural Muslim 87.0 83.3 82.2 29.3 21.3 23.5
Rural Others 85.5 82.2 80.9 45.4 38.7 35.6
Urban Scheduled caste 78.9 79.8 79.0 28.5 26.0 24.8
Urban Scheduled tribe 75.5 73.0 75.9 32.7 28.5 27.8
Urban Muslim 81.0 79.4 80.7 15.8 13.9 15.6
Urban Others 77.9 78.2 77.9 19.8 19.4 21.1
Notes:
1. Persons for whom social group was not reported were omitted.
2. Persons whose caste category was Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and
religion was Muslim were categorised according to their caste category.
Accordingly, the category ”Muslim” refers to non-SC/non-ST Muslims.
Source: Authors’ estimates based on NSS unit-level data
6
Table 3. Number of workers (UPSS) as a proportion of population, by broad classification of industries, rural, urban and total,
women aged 15-59 years, 1999-2000 and 2011-12 (per cent)
Sector Sub-sector Rural Urban

1999- 2009- 2011- 1999- 2009- 2011-
2000 10 12 2000 10 12
Agriculture (all) 40.9 30.8 27.7 3.6 2.6 2.1
Construction (all) 0.5 2.2 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.9
Manufacturing Manufacture of food products & beverages 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6
Manufacturing Manufacture of tobacco products 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.8
Manufacturing Manufacture of textile & apparel 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.7 3.0 3.3
Manufacturing (all) 3.6 3.0 3.7 4.9 5.5 6.0
7
Services Retail trade except motor vehicle 0.7 0.8 0.9 2.8 1.7 1.8
Services Education 0.6 0.9 1.0 2.5 2.7 2.9
Services Health care 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.9
Services (all) 2.8 3.0 3.1 11.2 10.5 11.7
All workers (all) 48.2 39.2 37.2 20.9 19.8 21.0
Table 4. Number of workers (UPSS) as a proportion of population, by broad classification of industries, rural, urban and total, men
aged 15-59 years, 1999-2000 and 2011-12 (per cent)

1999- 2009- 2011- 1999- 2009- 2011-
2000 10 12 2000 10 12
Agriculture (all) 60.1 50.2 46.5 4.3 3.8 3.5
Construction (all) 4.2 10.0 11.3 6.9 9.1 8.5
Manufacturing Manufacture of food products & beverages 1.1 0.8 0.9 2.1 1.5 1.7
Manufacturing Manufacture of tobacco products 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1
Manufacturing Manufacture of textile & apparel 1.4 1.5 1.5 3.9 5.1 5.3
Manufacturing (all) 6.4 6.1 6.9 17.7 17.3 17.5
8
Services Retail trade except motor vehicle 4.7 5.2 5.0 16.3 14.1 12.6
Services Education 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.4 2.9 2.9
Services Health care 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.2
Services (all) 14.6 15.6 16.0 47.8 46.7 46.7
All workers (all) 86.7 83.4 82.0 78.4 78.5 78.4
Table 5. Number of workers (UPSS) as a proportion of population, by type of employment, rural and urban, men and women aged
15-59 years, 1999-2000, 2009-10 and 2011-12 (per cent)
Sex Rural/ Self-employed Casual worker Casual worker Long-term

Urban (public works) (others) salaried worker
<9mid11> <12mid14>
1999- 2009- 2011- 1999- 2009- 2011- 1999- 2009- 2011- 1999- 2009- 2011-
2000 10 12 2000 10 12 2000 10 12 2000 10 12
Men Rural 45.7 42.7 42.9 0.2 0.7 0.8 32.4 32.3 29.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Men Urban 31.4 31.1 31.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 13.0 13.1 11.3 0.1 0.1 0.2
Women Rural 27.3 21.5 21.9 0.1 1.0 1.5 19.3 14.9 11.6 0.0 0.1 0.1
Women Urban 9.2 7.9 8.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.4 3.7 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.3
9
The State-level data presented in Table 6 show considerable variations across
States not only in terms of the levels of women’s employment in agriculture but
also in terms of the relative degree of decline in the availability of employment to
women. Figure 1 shows that almost all the States that had relatively high levels of the
proportion of women working on their household agricultural holdings saw a steep
fall in the proportion of such women cultivators. States with low levels of decline in
the proportion of self-employed cultivators were the States that had a very low base
value to start with.
An increase in proportion of households that do not have any operational
holding of land directly results in bringing down the proportion of workers who
are self-employed in agriculture. Increasing concentration of landholdings can also
indirectly contribute to decline in overall labour absorption (that is, not only reduce
levels of self-employment in agriculture but also reduce levels of wage employment
generated in agriculture) as, for a given cropping pattern, large landowners tend to
deploy labour displacing technology to a greater extent. Greater adoption of labour
displacing technology (in particular, increasing use of machines and weedicides),
caused by increasing concentration of landholdings and increasing cost advantage
of using labour displacing techniques among other factors, is likely to have been
an important factor behind the decline in overall level of labour absorption in
agriculture.
Until the 55th round, NSS treated households cultivating less than 0.01 hectares
as landless. Starting from the 61st round, NSS started collecting data on land as
small as 0.001 hectares. After correcting for this change, Rawal (2013) shows that
proportion of households that did not cultivate any land increased from about 41
per cent in 1999-2000 to 49 per cent in 2011-12.
To analyse the relationship between the decline in the proportion of self-
employed women and increase in the extent of landlessness, we mapped the data
from the 68th round to the district and regional classifications used in the 55th
round. This was then used to generate comparable estimates of landlessness and
proportion of self-employed women at the level of NSS regions. Figure 2 shows the
change in proportion of self-employed rural women and the change in proportion
of households that did not cultivate any land for each NSS region. Each arrow in
the figure corresponds to an NSS region. For each region, tail of the arrow shows
the position in 1999-2000 while head of the arrow shows the position in the region
in 2011-12. Negatively sloping lines for most NSS regions in the graph show that
the decline in proportion of rural working-age women who were self employed was
directly related to the increase in proportion of households that did not cultivate
any land.
3.2 Barriers to Mobility of Women Workers

Barrier to mobility are another important factor behind the decline in employment
of women. Given lack of decent housing and other basic amenities and serious
problems of safety, rural women find it difficult to migrate or commute to make use
of employment opportunities in urban areas.
In the Employment-Unemployment Surveys, NSSO collects data on location of
workplace only for non-agricultural employment. Further, codes used for location
of workplace are defined in such a way that they cannot be used to identify
rural residents commuting/migrating from their villages to other villages, or urban
10
Table 6. Number of workers (principal or subsidiary activity status) in
agriculture as a proportion of population, by type of employment, by State,
rural women aged 15-59 years, 1999-2000 and 2011-12
State Self-employed Wage labour

1999- 2011- 1999- 2011-
2000 12 2000 12
Andhra Pradesh 22.6 19.4 37.1 27.7
Arunachal Pradesh 45.3 36.6 1.2 1.6
Assam 11.2 10.1 8.7 4.0
Bihar 10.7 6.7 14.8 4.0
Goa 7.0 0.4 3.1 1.5
Gujarat 35.8 21.4 24.1 12.9
Haryana 28.7 16.5 3.8 3.5
Himachal Pradesh 66.4 59.6 0.5 0.6
Jammu and Kashmir 44.9 31.3 0.1 0.1
Karnataka 23.1 16.2 28.3 16.0
Kerala 13.0 5.5 6.9 5.1
Madhya Pradesh 32.2 24.1 26.7 14.6
Maharashtra 27.7 27.5 36.1 22.7
Manipur 24.3 6.8 1.6 1.1
Meghalaya 54.5 38.0 8.0 7.2
Mizoram 58.7 44.7 0.2 0.1
Nagaland 61.4 35.6 n l n l
Orissa 15.0 17.1 22.4 7.3
Punjab 38.3 21.4 2.2 3.4
Rajasthan 54.9 38.3 4.3 2.8
Sikkim 24.7 59.2 2.7 0.3
Tamil Nadu 14.2 7.4 31.3 17.6
Tripura 2.2 4.4 3.5 1.6
Uttar Pradesh 23.5 20.9 7.0 3.3
West Bengal 6.2 4.1 7.8 7.8
India 22.8 17.7 18.1 9.9
11
Table 7. Number of workers (principal or subsidiary activity status) in
agriculture as a proportion of population, by type of employment, by State,
rural men aged 15-59 years, 1999-2000 and 2011-12
State Self-employed Wage labour

1999- 2011- 1999- 2011-
2000 12 2000 12
Andhra Pradesh 30.0 26.3 35.7 24.1
Assam 35.7 39.0 17.8 8.1
Bihar 34.0 29.4 33.1 19.8
Goa 9.4 1.8 4.6 0.2
Gujarat 35.2 37.7 28.5 21.5
Haryana 35.3 29.5 12.6 6.7
Karnataka 36.3 32.1 33.1 21.0
Kerala 11.5 7.2 17.9 8.6
Madhya Pradesh 42.8 40.5 30.2 19.2
Maharashtra 27.3 32.3 33.8 22.0
Manipur 49.9 37.5 6.5 1.0
Meghalaya 66.5 38.9 11.3 8.8
Mizoram 72.9 66.3 1.2 0.1
Nagaland 45.4 44.8 2.5 0.3
Orissa 28.4 34.6 36.2 14.9
Punjab 31.6 21.0 20.9 12.6
Rajasthan 49.6 34.0 6.6 2.9
Sikkim 34.7 49.0 7.0 0.1
Tamil Nadu 17.7 11.9 33.7 26.3
Tripura 21.0 21.2 14.5 6.3
Uttar Pradesh 45.1 35.0 14.6 8.5
West Bengal 23.2 17.0 33.7 29.8
India 33.9 29.8 26.2 16.7
12
Figure 1. Level and change in proportion of self-employed cultivators
among rural women, by State, 1999-2000 and 2011-12
residents commuting/migrating from their towns/cities to other towns/cities. These

can be used only to examine the extent to which rural residents work in non-
agricultural occupations in urban areas (Table 8) and the extent to which urban
residents work in non-agricultural occupations in rural areas (Table 9). As seen in
the Table 8, less than half a per cent of rural women did any work (either as their
principal activity or as their subsidiary activity) in urban areas. Despite a massive
decline in employment opportunities in rural areas, there was only a marginal
increase in the proportion of rural working-age women who worked in urban areas,
from about 0.22 per cent in 1999-2000 to about 0.46 per cent in 2011-12. There was
a substantially higher rise in proportion of rural men who worked in urban areas,
mainly on account of work in construction and services sector.
Table 9 shows that there was a sharp decline in the proportion of urban male
residents who worked in rural areas, almost entirely on account of a decline seen in
the services sector. In contrast, the proportion of urban women who worked in rural
areas, although small, showed an increase between 1999-2000 and 2011-12. This
increase is primarily on account of urban women working in rural manufacturing
enterprises.
3.3 Level of Education and Technical Training among Women Workers

Indian workforce, male and female, is characterised by dismal levels of schooling
and technical training. The problem is particularly severe when one looks at the
female workforce. Employment opportunities for skilled work in the organized-
sector are limited and have not grown significantly. Given that, lower levels of
education and technical training have meant that women remain marginalised from
the limited employment opportunities that are available.
In this section, we look at the relative levels of education and technical
training received by women workers. In particular, we look at the proportion
of women workers who have received at least secondary education and any
technical/vocational training. We compare this ratio over time, across workers in
13
Figure 2. Change in proportion of rural self-employed women and
proportion of households not cultivating any land, by region, 1999-2000 and
2011-12
Note: Each arrow corresponds to an NSS region. Tail of an arrow marks

the position of the region in 1999-2000 while the head marks the position in
2011-12
different economic activities, between rural and urban workers, and between male
and female workers.
Table 10 shows the proportion of women workers in different sectors and sub-
sectors who have secondary education and at least some techical qualification. The
table points to the huge deficit in terms of formal education and training among
women workers. In 2011-12, only about 0.66 per cent of rural women workers and
about 7.6 per cent of urban women workers had secondary-level school education
and some technical training. Even among the manufacturing sector workers, only
0.14 per cent rural women workers and 2.14 per cent urban women workers had
secondary school education and some technical training. Even in education and
health-care, where a substantial proportion of women are employed and where
education and technical training is directly relevant, majority of women workers did
not have secondary-level education and technical training. A comparison of Tables
10 and 11 shows that the proportion of workers who have received secondary-level
education and technical training is smaller for women workers than male workers
in all the activities.
14
Table 8. Proportion of rural residents who worked in non-agricultural
activities in urban areas, by sector and sex, persons aged 15 to 59 years (per
cent)
Sector Men Women

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Construction 0.40 1.50 0.05 0.15
Manufacturing 0.51 0.67 0.06 0.11
Others 0.04 0.24 0.01 0.03
Services 1.09 2.34 0.11 0.16
Total 2.04 4.75 0.23 0.45
Notes: The estimates include workers who commuted or migrated for
their principal or subsidiary status activities.
Table 9. Proportion of urban residents who worked in non-agricultural

activities in rural areas, by sector and sex, persons aged 15 to 59 years (per
cent)
Sector Men Women

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Construction 1.58 0.44 0.23 0.02
Manufacturing 2.54 2.41 0.53 2.74
Others 0.25 0.28 0.03 0.06
Services 9.41 3.70 1.78 1.20
Total 13.78 6.83 2.57 4.02
Notes: The estimates include workers who commuted or migrated for
their principal or subsidiary status activities.
15
Table 10. Proportion of workers who have at least secondary education and
some technical training, by sector and industry, women aged 15 to 59 years
(per cent)

1999- 2011- 1999- 2011-
2000 12 2000 12
Agriculture 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.70
Construction 0.08 0.26 0.23 3.23
Manufacturing Manufacture of food products 0.00 0.02 0.89 0.49
& beverages
Manufacturing Manufacture of tobacco prod- 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.13
ucts
Manufacturing Manufacture of textile & ap- 1.07 0.29 2.18 1.98
parel
Manufacturing All 0.34 0.14 2.98 2.14
Services Retail trade except motor ve- 0.27 1.43 2.02 3.10
hicle
Services Education 14.51 10.59 14.04 15.77
Services Health care 14.64 26.59 39.83 39.73
Services All 4.65 6.47 8.47 12.01
All workers All 0.38 0.66 5.31 7.58
16
Table 11. Proportion of workers who have at least secondary education and
some technical training, by sector and industry, men aged 15 to 59 years (per
cent)

1999- 2011- 1999- 2011-
2000 12 2000 12
Agriculture 0.53 0.47 1.68 1.89
Construction 1.28 0.73 4.04 4.60
Manufacturing Manufacture of food products 2.25 1.26 2.45 7.50
& beverages
Manufacturing Manufacture of tobacco prod- 0.06 0.00 0.68 0.00
ucts
Manufacturing Manufacture of textile & ap- 1.92 2.67 2.18 2.17
parel
Manufacturing All 2.67 4.44 7.07 8.91
Services Retail trade except motor ve- 2.06 1.88 3.84 2.23
hicle
Services Education 14.38 9.44 18.16 16.24
Services Health care 32.36 28.46 35.30 42.04
Services All 4.19 3.81 6.63 8.55
All workers All 1.38 1.55 6.42 7.97
17
4 Economic Activities of Women Principally Engaged in
Housework
Table 12 shows that, in 2011-12, about 61 per cent of rural working-age women
and about 65 per cent of urban working-age women were principally engaged
in housework (that is, their principal activity status was housework). Between
1999-2000 and 2011-12, the proportion of rural working-age women who were
principally engaged in housework increased by about six percentage points and
the proportion of urban working-age women who were principally engaged in
housework declined by about two percentage points.
Among all States, the proportion of rural working-age women who were
principally engaged in housework was highest in Bihar (81.5 per cent) and lowest
in Sikkim (11.9 per cent). In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar over 73 per cent of urban
working-age women were principally engaged in housework. Proportion of urban
working-age women whose principal status activity was housework was lowest in
Meghalaya (35.7 per cent).
Table 14 shows the extent to which women principally engaged in housework
participate in various economic activities in their subsidiary activity status. This
table shows that, in 2011-12, about 17 per cent of rural women who were principally
engaged in housework and 4.2 per cent of urban women who were principally
engaged in housework were employed in a subsidiary status activity.4 Rest of the
women principally engaged in housework are classified in the NSS surveys as being
out of the labour force.
The main change seen in the Table 14 is in respect of rural women houseworkers
for whom, corresponding to the overall decline in agricultural employment, there
was a decline in participation in agriculture as a subsidiary activity from about 17
per cent in 1999-2000 to about 13 per cent in 2011-12. With almost no expansion
of subsidiary employment for rural women houseworkers in any other activity, this
resulted in a three percentage point increase in rural women houseorkers who did
not have any subsidiary employment.
In recording principal and subsidiary activity statuses in the NSS Employment
Unemployment Surveys, two different categories are used for persons engaged in
housework: persons who are only engaged in domestic work (activity status 92)
and persons who combine domestic work with free collection of goods (food, fuel or
fodder) or other economic activities to obtain various commodities for household
use (activity status 93). However, NSS Employment-Unemployment Surveys do
not make a clear conceptual distinction between activities that are classified as
household work and additional activities that are used to classify a person under
category 93. We did not find either a conceptual definition or any comprehensive list
of activities that qualify a person to have activity status 93 in the NSS questionnaires
or instruction manuals. In the codes for the blocks pertaining to usual activity
statuses of household members, the NSS schedules define category 92 as “attended
domestic duties only”, and category 93 as “attended domestic duties and was also
engaged in free collection of goods (vegetables, roots, fire-wood, cattle feed, etc.),
sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc. for household use”.
4
It is noteworthy that a person whose principal activity status is 92 or 93 could be employed
in a subsidiary activity. Such persons are considered workers when UPSS criterion is used
to identify the employment status.
18
Table 12. Proportion of women aged 15 to 59 years with household work as
their principal usual activity status, rural and urban, 1999-2000 and 2011-12
(per cent)
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Andhra Pradesh 28.40 32.90 62.30 59.70
Assam 70.80 75.80 63.90 72.30
Bihar 71.80 81.50 72.30 73.20
Goa 60.60 57.60 64.30 60.40
Gujarat 45.20 62.20 69.60 70.10
Haryana 84.10 76.20 73.50 70.00
Karnataka 39.60 49.50 62.90 62.30
Kerala 58.60 55.60 54.70 55.40
Madhya Pradesh 38.20 52.50 65.60 64.80
Maharashtra 30.20 44.90 65.60 62.00
Manipur 56.90 60.20 50.50 59.90
Meghalaya 17.90 21.00 43.20 35.70
Mizoram 31.40 36.80 39.40 41.20
Nagaland 44.40 41.50 44.80 50.80
Orissa 59.90 71.60 67.40 69.30
Punjab 83.50 78.60 72.80 70.20
Rajasthan 52.30 51.80 72.20 69.00
Sikkim 45.00 11.90 54.60 51.70
Tamil Nadu 36.60 45.90 59.90 57.10
Tripura 77.20 64.10 72.30 52.00
Uttar Pradesh 72.40 71.80 75.70 73.60
West Bengal 73.60 73.30 72.00 67.40
India 55.40 61.60 67.20 65.20
Notes: All women with principal status activity code 92 or 93 are included.
19
In the UN System of National Accounts (SNA), activities in which certain
commodities (goods) are produced by households for their own use are to be
classified within the production boundary and considered economic activities. In
contrast, activities through which certain services are provided by a member of
the household for own use of the household are not considered a part of the
production boundary and not considered economic activities (United Nations
Statistics Commission, 1993, 2009). While the NSS schedules and instruction
manuals do not provide such a conceptual basis for the distinction between activity
statuses 92 and 93, following distinction based on the SNA production boundary
seems consistent with the illustrations that are provided.
• Category 92 should include persons who are engaged only in activities aimed
at providing services like cooking, washing, cleaning, child care, and tutoring
children to their household. No payment is made for providing these services
to their own household. No acquisition of commodities takes place as part
of these activities.
• Category 93 should include persons who, in addition to providing various
services to their own household, are engaged in activities that involve
acquisition and production of various commodities for the use of the
household. Such acquisition may take place through collection of goods or
through productive activities.
In the NSS Employment Unemployment Surveys, illustrations of the activities

that might be considered for classification of persons engaged in housework are
provided in the block titled “follow-up questions for females with usual activity
status code 92 or 93”. However, since this block is used for persons having both
the activity status codes, it is not clear which activities are a part of the category 93
and which are a part of both the categories. In this block, following activities are
listed.
• maintenance of kitchen gardens, orchards etc.?

• work in household poultry, dairy, etc.?
• free collection of fish, small game, wild fruits, vegetables, etc. for household
consumption?
• free collection of fire-wood, cowdung, cattle feed etc. for household
consumption?
• husking of paddy for household consumption?
• grinding of foodgrains for household consumption?
• preparation of gur for household consumption?
• preservation of meat and fish for household consumption?
• making baskets and mats for household use?
• preparation of cow-dung cake for use as fuel in the household?
• sewing, tailoring, weaving etc. for household use?
• bringing water from outside the household premises?
20
• tutoring of own children or others’ children free of charge?
If we follow the conceptual distinction based on SNA, persons regularly engaged

in any of the activities listed above except tutoring children should be classified
under category 93 rather than 92. However, because of the conceptual ambiguity
and lack of clear instructions, the distinction between these two categories is not
maintained rigorously in the survey and, in the final data, several persons reported
to be regularly engaged in these unremunerated activities are assigned activity status
92. It must also be pointed out that, typically, the care work done by women and
participation in these unremunerated activities for obtaining various commodities
for the household are so totally intermingled in terms of time allocation that it
is impossible to have any assessment of relative importance of these two sets of
activities in terms of the burden of work on a women. This may also be a reason
that a rigorous distinction between categories 92 and 93 is not maintained in the
survey.5
The only way to deal with the NSSO data on participation in the specified home-
based unremunerated activities is to combine data for persons in Categories 92 and
93, and then identify women who work in the specified unremunerated economic
activities in addition to the care-work (or the so-called “domestic duties” in the
NSSO terminology).
In the analysis that follows, we examine the proportion of household-workers
(women aged 15-59 years whose principal activity status is 92 or 93) who are
engaged in specified unremunerated activities for obtaining various commodities
for household use.
Table 15 shows the proportion of rural and urban working-age women house-
hold workers who regularly undertake different activities for obtaining various
commodities for use of their households. For rural women household workers,
obtaining fuel for household use was the most important economic activity. In
2011-12, about 58 per cent women household workers were engaged in activities
to obtain fuel and fodder. Of them, about 42 per cent of rural household workers
regularly made dung cakes and about 44 per cent of rural household workers
regularly collected firefood, cowdung and fodder. About 45 per cent of the
rural household worker women were engaged in various activities for obtaining
food for the household. About 24 per cent rural household workers worked in
maintenance of kitchen gardens for household use, about 22 per cent regularly
5
Work done in these economic activities is not counted as “employment” because these goods
are obtained only for household use. However, precisely because of invisibility of such
work, ascertaining whether these activities are done solely for household use and if the
household also sells some of these goods is also very difficult. In instructions provided
for the survey, there is no guide about how to ascertain whether the household sells any
produce obtained from these activities, and how much sale of the produce would make
persons working on these activities employed in the corresponding industry instead of being
a non-worker under category 93. For example, consider the case of a woman who collects
firewood primarily for household use but has occasionally sold it to a neighbour. Would
such a person be categorised as a non-worker with activity status 93 or as a worker (because
she sold firewood)? Or, how would one differentiate between two women, one who works
to maintain a buffalo the milk from which is used for household consumption, and another
who similarly works to maintain a buffalo but sells a part of the milk for some time in the
year. Whether the calf produced by the buffalo would eventually be sold by the household
or kept for own use can be a matter of endless speculation.
21
worked to maintain household animal resourcs, about 19 per cent were engaged
in collection of food, and about 14 per cent regularly worked in specified food
processing activities. About 31 per cent of rural household worker women had
to regularly fetch water from outside. About 30 per cent rural household worker
women regularly worked to make or mend clothes for the household.
Among urban household worker women, the most important economic activ-
ities were related to making or mending clothes for the household. In 2011-12,
about 25 per cent of urban household worker women were regularly engaged in this
work.making or mending clothing for the household. About 13 per cent of urban
household worker women regularly worked in different activities for obtaining
food.
Between 1999-2000 and 2011-12, there was an increase in the proportion of
household worker women who regularly worked to maintain a kitchen garden
as well as an increase in the proportion of household worker women who were
regularly engaged in free collection of food. On the other hand, with rising
inequality in ownership of animals, a fewer percentage of household worker women
were engaged in maintenance of animals. This is likely to be on account of a falling
proportion of rural households that maintain animals (Birwal, 2008). In rural areas,
there was an increase in proportion of household worker women who were engaged
in collection of fuel and fodder, while the proportion of women regularly engaged
in making dung cakes fell between 1999-2000 and 2011-12.
It may also be pointed out that there are significant inter-State variations in the
extent to which women are involved in different activities. Appendix Tables 19-27
show State-wise proportion of rural and urban household worker women who are
engaged in different activities for obtaining various goods for household use. Table
19 shows that, in 2011-12, most north-eastern States had a very high proportion
of women regularly working in the kitchen gardens while the proportion of such
women was only 5 per cent in rural Maharashtra and 2.5 per cent in rural Punjab.
In Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir,
Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, more than half the rural women
household workers had to collect fuel or fodder in 2011-12. In Bihar, Haryana,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, more than half the rural women
household workers regularly made dung cakes.
Of all the specified unremunerated activities, tutoring children comprises a
service, and by the SNA classification, does not constitute an economic activity.
For the sake of comparison with other specified unremunerated activities, we have
also presented the proportion of women who were regularly engaged in tutoring
children without any remuneration in Table 28. In 2011-12, about 16 per cent
of urban women and about 5 per cent of rural women regularly tutored children
without any remuneration.
22
Table 13. Proportion of women aged 15 to 59 years with household work as
their principal usual activity status, by social group, rural and urban, 1999-
2000 and 2011-12 (per cent)
Social group Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Scheduled caste 52.6 61.6 64.2 62.3
Scheduled tribe 33.4 46.7 55.5 56.9
Muslim 73.0 73.1 75.0 74.1
Others 57.7 62.1 66.8 64.1
All 55.5 61.6 67.2 65.2
Table 14. Number of women having subsidiary employment in different

sectors as a proportion of all women principally engaged in housework,
women aged 15 to 59 years, rural and urban, India, 1999-2000 and 2011-
12 (per cent)
Sector Type of Rural Urban

employment 1999- 2011- 1999- 2011-
2000 12 2000 12
Agriculture Self-employed 14.0 10.5 1.3 0.8
Agriculture Long-term worker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Agriculture Casual worker 3.1 2.5 0.3 0.2
Agriculture Total 17.1 13.0 1.6 1.1
Construction 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.1
Manufacturing 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.8
Services 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.3
Non worker 80.8 83.0 95.4 95.8
All women principally engaged in housework 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Notes: All women with principal status activity code 92 or 93 are included.
23
Table 15. Proportion of women who regularly performed various activities
of economic importance for use of their households among women who
were principally engaged in housework, rural and urban, women aged 15
to 59 years (per cent)
S.No. Activity Rural Urban

1999- 2011- 1999- 2011-
2000 12 2000 12
1 Various activities to obtain food 55.3 45.0 20.0 12.8
1.1 Maintenance of kitchen garden 14.1 24.2 3.4 7.9
1.2 Maintenance of household animal re- 32.7 22.2 4.5 2.5
sources
1.3 Free collection of food 15.2 19.4 1.2 1.8
1.4 Food processing for household use 26.3 13.6 14.5 3.8
2 Various activities to obtain fuel and 61.9 57.7 8.8 7.4
fodder
2.1 Free collection of fuel and cattle feed 39.6 44.1 5.4 5.3
2.2 Preparation of cow-dung cake 48.8 41.8 5.8 4.8
3 Fetching water from outside the house- 50.9 31.3 23.3 10.0
hold premises
4 Making or mending clothing 28.6 29.6 28.4 25.1
5 Making baskets and mats 10.1 5.0 6.3 1.6
6 Tutoring own children or other children 6.2 7.6 13.9 13.3
for free
Notes:
1 There were a few cases of non-response in the 68th round data. Such observations
were omitted.
2 Food processing activities included in the NSS quesionnaire include husking of paddy,
grinding grain, making gur, and activities related to preservation of meet and fish.
3 Although tutoring children is a service, estimates for this activity have been included
in this table for the sake of providing complete data.
24
5 Revised Estimates of the Unemployment Rate
A vast majority of women principally engaged in housework are engaged in
specified unremunerated activities for household use and are not considered a
part of the labour force in official statistics on employment in India. This results
in misleading estimates of the size of the labour force and of the extent of open
unemployment that exists in India. This issue is the focus of discussion in this
Section.
Since the 1993 Edition of the UN System of National Accounts (United Nations
Statistics Commission, 1993, 2009), activities through which certain commodities
(goods) are produced by households for their own use (unlike activities through
which services are produced by households for their own use) are supposed to be
classified within the production boundary. Accordingly, persons engaged in these
activities should be considered a part of the labour force. The following text quoted
from United Nations Statistics Commission (2009) elaborates the concept and lists
activities that should be considered within the production boundary even if they
were done for household use.
Although services produced for own consumption within households

fall outside the boundary of production used in the SNA, it is
nevertheless useful to give further guidance with respect to the
treatment of certain kinds of household activities which may be
particularly important in some developing countries. The SNA
includes the production of all goods within the production boundary.
The following types of production by households are included whether
intended for own final consumption or not:
a. The production of agricultural products and their subsequent
storage; the gathering of berries or other uncultivated crops; forestry;
wood-cutting and the collection of firewood; hunting and fishing;
b. The production of other primary products such as mining salt,
cutting peat, etc.;
c. The processing of agricultural products; the production of grain by
threshing; the production of flour by milling; the curing of skins and
the production of leather; the production and preservation of meat
and fish products; the preservation of fruit by drying, bottling, etc.; the
production of dairy products such as butter or cheese; the production
of beer, wine, or spirits; the production of baskets or mats; etc.;
d. Other kinds of processing such as weaving cloth; dress making
and tailoring; the production of footwear; the production of pottery,
utensils or durables; making furniture or furnishings; etc.;
e. The supply of water is also considered a goods- producing activity in
this context. In principle, supplying water is a similar kind of activity
to extracting and piping crude oil.
Source: United Nations Statistics Commission (2009), System of
National Accounts, 2008, United Nations Statistics Division, New York,
url: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/
SNA2008.pdf
25
The Indian System of National Accounts only partially deals with production for
own final use (National Statistical Commission, 2001). As per the Indian System
of National Accounts, activities related to production in agriculture and alllied
sectors (crop production, maintenance of animals, fish production, and collection
of agricultural products), even if for household use, are covered under economic
activities. Other activities for production of goods for household use, although
covered in the production boundary as per United Nations Statistics Commission
(2009), are not covered under economic activities in the Indian System of National
Accounts National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2014).
Official estimates of the size of the labour force in India based on the NSS
Employment Unemployment Surveys do not include persons engaged in specified
unremunerated activities that fall within the production boundary as defined in the
UN System of National Accounts. Various activities discussed in Section 4 involve
production and acquisition of commodities for household use. Persons engaged
in these activities but not in any other economic activity are not considered a part
of the labour force in the official estimates of employment. Doing this results in
a very large under-estimation of labour force in India. Table 16 shows that there
were a total of 55 crores persons aged 15-59 years in the labour force. Inclusion
of persons engaged in specified unremunerated activities (and no other economic
activity) resulted in a 28 per cent increase in number of persons in the age group
15-59 years who were in the labour force.
While it is important to include this economically-active population in the
labour force, it is also important to recognise that such work is unremunerated and
is minimally productive. In an attempt to correct the error caused by exclusion
of such persons from the labour force, National Sample Survey Organisation
(NSSO) (2014) included them not only in the labour force but also treated them
as employed. Given that the work done by these persons is unremunerated and
minimally productive, treating them as employed, as done in National Sample
Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2014), is a statistical travesty as great as excluding
them altogether from the labour force.6
In the official statistics on employment in India, only those persons are
considered unemployed who, during the reference period, actively sought work but
did not find any. This is incorrect since a vast number of people, particularly women,
do not seek work simply because, from past experience and their observation of the
labour market, they know that getting remunerative employment is not possible.
Not making an attempt to seek work does not reflect a lack of interest or inability
to work. With no means of obtaining remunerated employment, a vast number
of such people, predominantly women, resign themselves to the unremunerated
and minimally productive forms of labour like collecting food, fuel and fodder, and
mending clothes for the use of their household.
6
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2014) divides the specified activities into
three categories: i) activities involving production (and collection) activities in agriculture
and allied sectors, ii) activities involving processing of food, and iii) remaining activities
(including making of dung cakes, sewing and tailoring work, and tutoring children). The
report presents estimates of labour force participation rates and work force participation
rates after including categories (i) and (ii) in the labour force and work force. As has been
noted in the Report, some of the activities in Category (iii) are also a part of the production
boundary as per SNA 2008. As a result, estimates provided in the Report are not consistent
with the concept of production boundary and economic activities specified in SNA 2008.
26
Table 16. Number of persons in the labour force, aged 15 to 59 years, by sex,
rural and urban, 2011-12 (crores of persons)
Sector Men Women All

Rural 21.5 (0.4) 19.0 (99.1) 40.5 (30.8)
Urban 9.5 (0.1) 4.9 (104.8) 14.4 (21.4)
Total 31.0 (0.3) 23.9 (100.3) 55.0 (28.2)
Notes: Figures in parentheses show the percentage change
in the number of persons on account of inclusion of
women only engaged in specified unremunerated economic
activities for household use.
Given that such work remains unremunerated and minimally productive,

persons engaged in these activities should be considered a part of the labour force
but treated as unemployed. Doing this provides more meaningful estimates of the
open unemployment rate than the current official estimates do.
Table 17 shows that, in 2011-12, the open unemployment rate among working-
age persons in India as a whole was as high as 23.8 per cent. This is over 20
percentage points higher than the estimates based on methodology used in the
official estimates.
Revised estimates of unemployment presented in Table 17 also show that,
while rural unemployment rate was lower than urban unemployment rate in 1999-
2000, a huge increase in rural unemployment resulted in rural unemployment rate
surpassing the urban unemployment rate in 2011-12.
As per the revised estimates, over 50 per cent of working-age women in
the labour force were unemployed in 2011-12. Corresponding estimate of open
unemployment among men was only 2.5 per cent.
Table 18 shows the levels of unemployment across different social group. The
Table shows that in both rural and urban areas, unemployment rates are higher
among Muslims than among other social groups. This is particularly the case among
women, with a considerable gap between unemployment rates of Muslims and
others.
27
Table 17. Estimates of unemployment rate among men and women aged
15 to 59 years, without and after taking into account unremunerated home-
based work, rural, urban and total, 1999-2000 and 2011-12 (per cent)
Sector Men Women All

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Conventional:
Excluding persons engaged in unremunerated specified activities
Rural 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.8
Urban 4.7 3.1 6.1 5.5 4.9 3.6
Total 2.6 2.2 1.8 2.5 2.4 2.3
Revised:
Including persons engaged in unremunerated specified activities
Rural 1.9 2.2 43.7 50.7 22.4 24.9
Urban 4.7 3.2 61.7 53.9 26.0 20.6
Total 2.6 2.5 47.1 51.3 23.2 23.8
Notes:
1 In the revised estimates presented in the table, persons engaged in specified
unremunerated activities (other than tutoring children) were classified as part of the
labour force and unemployed.
Table 18. Estimates of unemployment rate among men and women aged 15
to 59 years, after taking into account unremunerated home-based work, by
social group, rural, urban and total, 2011-12 (per cent)
Social group Rural Urban Total

Men Women Men Women Men Women
Scheduled caste 2.5 49.3 3.4 51.9 2.7 49.7
Scheduled tribe 2.0 36.4 3.6 51.4 2.2 37.6
Muslim 2.5 67.3 3.9 62.2 3.1 66.0
Others 2.1 51.0 3.0 52.6 2.4 51.4
28
6 Summing up
This paper is a contribution towards understanding reasons behind declining female
employment in India as indicated by recent rounds of large-sample Employment
and Unemployment Surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey (NSS)
Organisation. The analysis presented in this paper is based on working age
population (15 to 59 years) in both rural and urban areas. The paper uses three
rounds of the NSS Employment and Unemployment Surveys – 55th Round (1999-
2000), 66th Round (2009-10), and 68th Round (2011-12). The paper excludes the
61st round (2004-05) because results from this round have been controversial and
no satisfactory explanation has been given for the results being at odds with other
evidence.
Following points emerge from the analysis presented in the paper.
There was a sharp decline in female workforce participation rate from 41 per
cent in 1999-2000 to 32 per cent in 2011-12. This decline was sharper in rural areas
(from 48 per cent in 1999-2000 to 37 per cent in 2011-12), and can be primarily
attributed to massive contraction of employment opportunities in agriculture,
which was not compensated by rising employment opportunities in rural non-
farm sector. In contrast, among men, decline in the availability of employment
in agriculture was compensated in part by the expansion of employment in
construction. Looking at rural and urban areas together, employment for men
declined by 11 percentage points in agriculture and increased by about 6 percentage
points in construction between 1999-2000 and 2011-12.
The paper identifies three important factors that are likely to have contributed
to a decline in the levels of employment of women.
• Proportion of households that did not have any land to cultivate increased
from about 41 per cent in 1999-2000 to about 49 per cent in 2011-12. Women
are primarily employed in agriculture. Decline in proportion of households
that cultivated land directed resulted in a decline in proportion of women
who were self-employed in agriculture. With a clear cost advantage in
mechanisation over use of animals for draught power, there has been an in-
creasing adoption of labour displacing technology in agriculture. Increased
concentration of operational holdings is also likely to have contributed
to a greater adoption of labour displacing technologies in agriculture as
large cultivators deploy labour displacing technology to a greater extent.
Adoption of labour displacing technology results in a decline in overall
labour absorption in agriculture.
• Lack of access to basic amenities and serious problems of safety for women
impede physical mobility of women. Very few rural women migrate or
commute to urban areas to take advantage of whatever non-agricultural
employment is available in the towns and cities. Proportion of rural
women who did some work in urban areas is minuscule, and increased only
marginally from about 0.22 per cent in 1999-2000 to only about 0.46 per
cent in 2011-12. Although small in magnitude, the direction of change
in the proportion of urban women working in rural areas is noteworthy.
Mainly driven by a small increase in absorption of women in manufacturing
enterprises located in rural areas, the proportion of urban women doing
some work in rural areas increased from 2.57 per cent in 1999-2000 to 4.02
per cent in 2011-12.
29
• Finally, with dismal levels of education and technical training, women are
marginalised from the limited opportunities for more remunerative skilled
work. In 2011-12, only 0.66 per cent of rural working-age women workers
and only 7.6 per cent of urban working-age women workers had received
secondary-level education and some technical training. Even among women
employed in education and health care services, a vast majority did not have
secondary-level education and technical training.
As per the UN System of National Accounts, persons engaged in activities
that result in production of different commodities for household use should be
considered a part of the labour force. However, in the NSSO Surveys of Employment
and Unemployment, women engaged only in housework are considered out of
labour force even if the housework involves regular participation in activities for
producing/acquiring food, fuel, fodder, clothing and other commodities. With
contraction of employment opportunities for women, proportion of rural working-
age women who were principally engaged in housework increased from about 55
per cent in 1999-2000 to about 62 per cent in 2011-12. Data presented in Section
4 show that, in addition to care-work for the household, a substantial proportion
of women who were reported to be principally engaged in housework were also
engaged in activities for obtaining different commodities for household use. This
was particularly important for rural women. In 2011-12, about 58 per cent of
rural working-age houseworker women regularly worked to obtain fuel or fodder
for household use. Similarly, about 45 per cent of rural houseworker women
regularly worked to obtain food for the household. Abour 31 per cent of rural
houseworkers had to regularly fetch water from outside, and about 30 per cent had
to regularly work to prepare clothing for household use. Among urban working-age
women who were principally engaged in housework, about 25 per cent worked to
make clothing for household use, and about 13 per cent worked to obtain food for
household use.
In Section 5 of the paper, we argue that women engaged in these specified
activities for home use should be considered a part of the labour force. We show
that by doing this, the size of labour force in the age group 15 to 59 years increases
by 28 per cent. Further, we argue that, because these activities are unremunerated
and minimally productive, women engaged in only these activities other than care-
work for their own households should be treated as unemployed. By accounting for
this, the paper shows that, in 2011-12, the open unemployment rate among working
age persons was 23.8 per cent. Unemployment rates were particularly high among
women and had increased from about 47 per cent in 1999-2000 to over 51 per cent
in 2011-12.
To sum, data on employment conditions of women workers from recent NSSO
surveys show an extremely dismal picture. There has been a steep decline in the
availability of work for women. With rising landlessness and declining labour
absorption in agriculture, there has been a sharp contraction in availability of
employment in agriculture. Given lack of basic amenities and serious problems
of security, most women are unable to access urban non-agricultural employment.
This has resulted in a significant increase in proportion of rural working-age
women who were engaged in housework. A very large proportion of such women
are engaged in unremunerated work to obtain different commodities for their
households. Accounting for such women as unemployed shows that unemployment
rate in India is extremely high and has risen significantly over the last decade.
30
Appendix Tables
Table 19. Proportion of women who regularly worked in maintenance of

kitchen garden and orchards among women who were principally engaged
in housework (principal activity status 92 or 93), by State, rural women aged
15 to 59 years (per cent)
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Andhra Pradesh 5.2 8.2 1.9 6.1
Assam 56.6 85.5 13.5 38.3
Bihar 19.8 34.4 8.5 15.3
Goa 10.2 21.5 3.1 19.4
Gujarat 1.9 13.7 1.3 6.8
Haryana 0.4 11.0 0.2 4.9
Karnataka 6.0 12.5 3.4 13.0
Kerala 22.5 16.6 16.1 11.3
Madhya Pradesh 12.4 33.0 2.5 13.4
Maharashtra 7.0 5.0 1.0 2.1
Manipur 68.0 67.6 40.8 45.8
Meghalaya 71.9 77.5 21.8 30.0
Mizoram 26.8 64.5 23.6 34.6
Nagaland 72.1 87.6 39.4 52.5
Orissa 25.4 32.6 8.2 15.5
Punjab 2.6 2.5 1.9 2.4
Rajasthan 1.8 15.8 1.2 5.1
Sikkim 31.8 40.0 1.8 1.7
Tamil Nadu 11.5 11.3 4.5 9.1
Tripura 24.6 33.4 4.8 17.5
Uttar Pradesh 10.4 14.4 2.1 5.0
Notes: There were a few cases of non-response in the 68th round data. Such observations
were omitted.
31
Table 20. Proportion of women who regularly worked for maintenance of
household animal resources among women who were principally engaged
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 64.9 70.6 8.5 12.0
Bihar 26.5 16.9 10.8 4.4
Goa 3.6 5.6 1.2 3.2
Gujarat 27.9 20.1 1.3 0.9
Haryana 57.4 37.1 13.9 3.0
Karnataka 16.3 10.4 1.9 0.8
Kerala 31.9 14.5 13.9 4.8
Madhya Pradesh 26.2 19.4 2.6 3.4
Maharashtra 15.9 6.0 0.5 0.1
Manipur 42.7 43.8 16.9 16.0
Meghalaya 55.4 43.6 5.0 6.7
Mizoram 50.7 73.5 26.5 43.1
Nagaland 64.6 61.9 36.5 44.4
Orissa 36.0 28.1 9.1 2.4
Punjab 45.0 23.8 4.8 2.4
Rajasthan 42.6 21.7 10.8 4.3
Sikkim 22.3 10.2 3.4 1.4
Tamil Nadu 15.1 5.7 2.8 1.8
Tripura 26.0 30.7 3.3 8.9
Uttar Pradesh 36.9 22.3 7.4 4.0
were omitted.
32
Table 21. Proportion of women who were regularly engaged in collection
food for household consumption among women who were principally
engaged in housework (principal activity status 92 or 93), by State, rural
women aged 15 to 59 years (per cent)
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 39.9 67.9 1.8 8.0
Bihar 17.7 22.1 3.9 4.8
Goa 2.7 5.9 0.7 4.4
Gujarat 7.6 10.3 0.4 0.8
Haryana 21.4 12.8 10.2 1.4
Karnataka 7.4 8.2 0.3 0.3
Kerala 2.2 2.1 1.1 0.5
Manipur 52.4 44.2 17.4 18.5
Meghalaya 51.5 53.9 0.1 15.7
Mizoram 44.6 56.8 13.6 14.0
Nagaland 80.0 72.8 12.6 35.0
Orissa 25.4 26.8 4.6 2.3
Punjab 7.5 3.3 1.3 0.1
Rajasthan 10.3 20.7 0.7 2.5
Sikkim 20.8 16.2 1.3 0.7
Tamil Nadu 3.1 3.4 0.6 1.0
Tripura 15.2 25.6 0.3 5.6
Uttar Pradesh 9.6 8.3 0.7 1.4
were omitted.
33
Table 22. Proportion of women who were regularly engaged in collection
fuel and fodder for household consumption among women who were
principally engaged in housework (principal activity status 92 or 93), by
State, rural women aged 15 to 59 years (per cent)
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 34.8 60.7 3.7 5.2
Bihar 43.3 50.0 12.4 9.4
Goa 23.6 18.0 5.4 9.5
Gujarat 55.0 48.5 6.3 4.6
Haryana 39.5 43.8 15.9 4.8
Karnataka 31.3 35.9 2.7 5.0
Kerala 20.4 16.5 10.0 3.7
Madhya Pradesh 49.2 64.9 7.1 12.9
Maharashtra 36.9 30.3 2.0 1.2
Manipur 52.7 38.9 16.4 10.0
Meghalaya 50.4 60.4 0.7 10.8
Mizoram 74.4 66.9 18.8 13.6
Nagaland 69.6 60.1 17.2 19.2
Orissa 40.4 44.4 9.2 4.9
Punjab 32.0 18.7 6.1 1.4
Rajasthan 51.4 61.0 11.2 9.2
Sikkim 34.9 11.2 0.9 1.7
Tamil Nadu 37.5 23.6 5.1 3.9
Tripura 22.5 35.4 1.2 7.1
Uttar Pradesh 31.8 36.9 3.6 7.3
were omitted.
34
Table 23. Proportion of women who regularly made baskets and mats for
household use among women who were principally engaged in housework
(principal activity status 92 or 93), by State, rural women aged 15 to 59 years
(per cent)
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 10.7 9.5 8.2 3.7
Bihar 14.8 10.3 11.7 5.2
Goa 0.0 0.2 2.4 0.7
Gujarat 1.9 1.8 1.4 0.3
Haryana 5.2 2.6 1.9 1.9
Karnataka 7.2 2.0 5.8 1.6
Kerala 4.6 1.6 6.1 1.4
Manipur 15.5 16.1 10.7 5.4
Meghalaya 8.5 16.4 5.9 7.6
Mizoram 3.5 11.2 12.4 2.8
Nagaland 12.2 17.1 4.2 10.0
Orissa 4.6 4.1 3.8 1.9
Punjab 6.3 1.6 3.6 0.0
Rajasthan 4.6 4.3 3.0 0.7
Sikkim 4.9 0.7 0.2 0.0
Tamil Nadu 4.2 0.7 8.3 1.3
Tripura 8.6 3.4 12.5 0.8
Uttar Pradesh 17.9 6.2 15.6 2.7
were omitted.
35
Table 24. Proportion of women who regularly made dung cakes for
household consumption among women who were principally engaged in
housework (principal activity status 92 or 93), by State, rural women aged
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 20.9 22.9 4.8 2.4
Bihar 58.9 53.7 17.5 11.3
Goa 7.0 17.7 0.9 6.3
Gujarat 47.0 35.0 4.3 3.0
Haryana 78.1 64.1 16.9 7.3
Karnataka 22.0 10.3 2.8 2.4
Kerala 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.2
Madhya Pradesh 72.8 72.5 10.9 13.9
Maharashtra 35.4 18.7 1.8 0.8
Manipur 20.4 13.5 12.1 8.1
Meghalaya 5.2 7.0 1.5 4.3
Mizoram 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.0
Nagaland 4.3 0.6 0.9 2.6
Orissa 30.4 27.0 7.7 3.9
Punjab 64.0 38.1 8.6 5.0
Rajasthan 59.0 54.8 9.5 10.0
Sikkim 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tamil Nadu 10.6 2.7 1.9 0.0
Tripura 10.7 4.5 2.3 1.5
Uttar Pradesh 65.3 54.9 8.6 9.3
were omitted.
36
Table 25. Proportion of women who were regularly engaged in making and
mending clothes for household use among women who were principally
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 50.9 55.8 40.9 48.3
Bihar 34.4 37.1 47.2 49.0
Goa 21.4 21.6 24.6 23.2
Gujarat 8.4 9.3 13.7 13.4
Haryana 33.7 43.3 37.5 29.6
Karnataka 5.7 6.6 9.9 8.8
Kerala 10.3 11.3 12.6 13.2
Madhya Pradesh 15.6 22.2 30.8 30.0
Maharashtra 11.9 6.0 15.0 9.6
Manipur 26.5 42.0 25.3 28.9
Meghalaya 25.3 37.0 21.4 36.3
Mizoram 53.4 40.9 60.0 45.7
Nagaland 76.0 54.6 74.3 43.5
Orissa 9.4 11.1 11.1 15.8
Punjab 56.0 48.1 56.9 45.3
Rajasthan 24.3 30.1 34.2 33.6
Sikkim 42.5 30.9 49.8 46.7
Tamil Nadu 5.8 1.9 11.4 6.3
Tripura 15.4 17.4 19.8 8.4
Uttar Pradesh 34.2 36.6 47.2 47.2
were omitted.
37
Table 26. Proportion of women who were regularly engaged in fetching
water from outside the homestead among women who were principally
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Andhra Pradesh 64.2 25.3 33.5 7.5
Assam 37.0 14.9 12.3 12.6
Bihar 45.1 19.6 19.3 9.3
Goa 39.1 1.8 29.4 0.9
Gujarat 46.2 19.6 13.2 2.9
Haryana 57.3 14.7 23.0 2.1
Karnataka 62.7 42.9 27.5 17.4
Kerala 22.4 7.9 13.3 6.4
Madhya Pradesh 70.4 58.0 30.2 16.7
Maharashtra 59.4 15.5 22.1 3.1
Manipur 57.2 73.0 51.4 58.0
Meghalaya 66.8 52.5 46.0 21.3
Mizoram 85.0 78.2 57.5 33.6
Nagaland 82.7 43.5 67.9 33.7
Orissa 76.5 68.9 50.2 33.7
Punjab 6.9 3.5 2.9 0.3
Rajasthan 62.8 40.8 12.2 5.7
Sikkim 41.5 5.9 25.3 0.7
Tamil Nadu 65.1 20.1 39.5 13.3
Tripura 62.2 62.2 33.4 26.0
Uttar Pradesh 36.2 23.5 14.0 7.4
were omitted.
38
Table 27. Proportion of women who were regularly engaged in specified
food processing activities among women who were principally engaged in
housework (principal activity status 92 or 93), by State, rural women aged
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 54.5 50.1 27.1 17.4
Bihar 41.5 21.4 21.4 8.3
Goa 5.8 2.1 11.6 1.4
Gujarat 7.5 4.0 5.2 1.1
Haryana 11.3 8.4 4.3 2.4
Karnataka 18.0 3.7 12.4 1.3
Kerala 37.4 4.4 39.9 7.0
Manipur 55.5 50.6 24.1 18.0
Meghalaya 53.7 42.6 10.1 35.9
Mizoram 52.4 45.1 23.6 14.9
Nagaland 82.5 74.7 57.4 51.7
Orissa 44.9 40.5 24.1 24.2
Punjab 7.9 1.9 4.3 0.7
Rajasthan 13.0 12.4 3.6 2.0
Sikkim 25.5 4.9 6.3 0.0
Tamil Nadu 36.6 7.5 46.6 9.2
Tripura 24.8 9.2 18.0 2.9
Uttar Pradesh 20.8 7.2 17.2 2.7
Notes:
were omitted.
39
Table 28. Proportion of women who were regularly engaged in tutoring their
own or other children for free among women who were principally engaged
State Rural Urban

1999-2000 2011-12 1999-2000 2011-12
Assam 7.8 15.6 19.7 23.0
Bihar 4.5 5.6 14.7 16.8
Goa 4.7 16.8 11.4 23.5
Gujarat 5.5 4.8 11.7 11.2
Haryana 4.1 8.1 15.4 15.1
Karnataka 5.6 7.4 10.1 13.3
Kerala 14.6 14.3 17.2 16.3
Maharashtra 8.3 5.4 11.4 7.8
Manipur 9.7 15.8 16.8 19.8
Meghalaya 18.6 29.0 17.5 41.7
Mizoram 45.9 44.8 41.9 43.1
Nagaland 23.8 21.6 41.4 16.8
Orissa 4.0 8.5 10.5 14.6
Punjab 10.4 9.0 20.4 15.9
Rajasthan 3.1 3.9 12.7 11.4
Sikkim 21.1 11.9 25.6 32.7
Tamil Nadu 6.3 4.9 13.8 9.5
Tripura 13.7 10.0 16.8 11.9
Uttar Pradesh 4.7 5.3 15.2 15.8
Notes:
were omitted.
40
References
Abraham, Vinoj (2009), “Employment Growth in Rural India: Distress-Driven?”,
Economic and Political Weekly, 44(16).
(2013), “Missing Labour or Consistent ”De-Feminisation”?”, Economic and
Political Weekly, 48(31).
Agarwal, Bina (1985), “Work Participation of Rural Women in Third World-Some
Data and Conceptual Biases”, Economic and Political Weekly, 20(51-52).
Birwal, Devesh (2008), “Livestock and Poultry Holdings in India, 1991-92 to 2002-
03”, M.Phil. dissertation, New Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Chandrasekhar, C. P., and Ghosh, Jayati (2013), “The employment bottleneck”,
Businessline, url: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/
columns / c - p - chandrasekhar / the - employment - bottleneck /
article4895376.ece.
Chandrasekhar, C.P., and Ghosh, Jayati (2007), “Self-employment as Opportunity
or Challenge”, Business Line, url: http : / / www . macroscan . org / fet /
mar07/pdf/Self_employment.pdf.
(2011), “Latest Employment Trends from the NSSO”, Business Line, 12, url:
http : / / www . thehindubusinessline . com / opinion / columns / c -
p - chandrasekhar / latest - employment - trends - from - the - nsso /
article2219107.ece.
D. T. Lakdawala Committee (1993), Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of
Proportion and Number of Poor, Perspective Planning Division, Planning
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, url: http://planningco
mmission.nic.in/reports/publications/pub93_nopoors.pdf.
Ghosh, Jayati (2009), Never Done and Poorly Paid: Women’s Work in Globalising
India, Women’s Unlimited, New Delhi.
Ghosh, Jayati, and Chandrasekhar, C.P. (2007), “Economic growth and em-
ployment generation in India: Old problems and new paradoxes”, in
IDEAs International Conference on Sustainable Employment Generation in
developing Countries: Current Constraints and alternative Strategies, url:
http : / / www . networkideas . org / feathm / mar2007 / PDF / Jayati _
Ghosh.pdf.
Himanshu (2011), “Employment Trends in India: A Re-examination”, Economic and
Mehrotra, Santosh, Parida, Jajati, Sinha, Sharmistha, and Gandhi, Ankita (2014),
“Explaining Employment Trends in the Indian Economy: 1993-94 to 2011-
12”, Economic and Political Weekly, 49(32).
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2014), Participation of Women in
Specified Activities along with Domestic Duties, NSS 68th round, July 2011-
June 12, vol. Report no. 559, National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry
of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New
Delhi, url: http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_
559_10oct14.pdf.
National Statistical Commission (2001), Report of the National Statistical Commis-
sion, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government
of India, New Delhi, url: http : / / mospi . nic . in / Mospi _ New / site /
inner.aspx?status=2&menu_id=87.
41
Neetha, N. (2014), “Crisis in Female Employment”, Economic and Political Weekly,
49(47).
Neetha, N., and Mazumdar, Indrani (2011), “Gender Dimensions: Employment
Trends in India, 1993-94 to 2009-10”, Economic and Political Weekly, 46(43).
Rangarajan, C., Kaul, P. I., and Seema (2011), “Where Is the Missing Labour Force?”,
Economic and Political Weekly, 46(39).
Rangarajan, C., Seema, and Vibeesh, E M (2012), “Developments in the Workforce
between 2009-10 and 2011-12”, Economic and Political Weekly, 47(23),
pp. 117–121.
Raveendran, G, and Kannan, K P (2012), “Counting and Profiling the Missing
Labour Force”, Economic and Political Weekly, 47(06).
Raveendran, G, and Unni, Jeemol (2007), “Growth of Employment (1993-94 to
2004-05): Illusion of Inclusiveness?”, Economic and Political Weekly, 42(03).
Rawal, Vikas (2013), “Changes in Distribution of Operational Holdings of Land in
Rural India”, Review of Agrarian Studies, 3(2), url: http://www.ras.org.
in/changes_in_the_distribution_of_operational_landholdings_
in_rural_india.
Thomas, Jayan Jose (2012), “India’s Labour Market during the 2000s”, Economic and
United Nations Statistics Commission (1993), System of National Accounts, 1993,
United Nations Statistics Division, Brussels/Luxembourg, url: http : / /
unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/1993sna.pdf.
(2009), System of National Accounts, 2008, United Nations Statistics
Division, New York, url: http : / / unstats . un . org / unsd /
nationalaccount/docs/SNA2008.pdf.
42
There was a sharp decline in female workforce participation rate in India between
1999-2000 and 2011-12. This decline can be primarily attributed to massive con-
traction of employment opportunities in agriculture, which was not compensated
by rising employment opportunities in rural non-farm sector. In contrast, among
men, decline in the availability of employment in agriculture was compensated in
part by the expansion of employment in construction.
The paper identifies three important factors that are likely to have contributed
to a decline in the levels of employment of women: increase in the proportion of
landless households, poor and unsafe living conditions for migrants in urban areas,
and lower levels of education among women workers than men workers.
The paper also shows that the Indian estimates of labour force are inconsistent
with accepted international practices. Making corrections in these estimates
using the NSSO data, the paper shows that, in 2011-12, the open unemployment
rate among working age persons was 23.8 per cent. Unemployment rates were
particularly high among women and had increased from about 47 per cent in 1999-
2000 to over 51 per cent in 2011-12.
Vikas Rawal ([email protected]) is with the Centre for Economic Studies

and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Partha Saha (kut-
[email protected]) is with the School of Development Studies, B. R. Ambedkar
University, Delhi.
Key words
employment, women, work, India, labour
Recommended citation
Rawal, Vikas and Saha, Partha (2015), “Women’s Employment in India: What do
Recent NSS Surveys of Employment and Unemployment Show?”, SSER Monograph
15/1, Society for Social and Economic Research, New Delhi (available at: http:
//archive.indianstatistics.org/sserwp/sserwp1501.pdf).
The Society for Social and Economic Research (SSER) is a charitable trust based
in New Delhi, India. SSER undertakes research on a wide range of issues
related to social and economic development. These include issues related to food
security and nutrition, agricultural development and rural livelihoods, industrial
development, employment and labour relations, discrimination and exclusion, and
living conditions in rural and urban areas.

Women Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women’s Employment

SSER Monograph 15/1

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information

2 Overall Changes in Women’s Employment

3 Explaining the Decline in Work Participation Rates among

Table 1. Proportion of workers (UPSS) in population, aged 15 to 59 years,

Sex Rural/Urban 1999-2000 2009-10 2011-12

Table 2. Proportion of workers (UPSS) in population, aged 15 to 59 years,

Rural/ Social Men Women

Sector Sub-sector Rural Urban

Sector Sub-sector Rural Urban

Sex Rural/ Self-employed Casual worker Casual worker Long-term

3.2 Barriers to Mobility of Women Workers

State Self-employed Wage labour

State Self-employed Wage labour

residents commuting/migrating from their towns/cities to other towns/cities. These

3.3 Level of Education and Technical Training among Women Workers

Note: Each arrow corresponds to an NSS region. Tail of an arrow marks

Sector Men Women

Table 9. Proportion of urban residents who worked in non-agricultural

Sector Men Women

Sector Sub-sector Rural Urban

Sector Sub-sector Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

In the NSS Employment Unemployment Surveys, illustrations of the activities

• maintenance of kitchen gardens, orchards etc.?

If we follow the conceptual distinction based on SNA, persons regularly engaged

Social group Rural Urban

Table 14. Number of women having subsidiary employment in different

Sector Type of Rural Urban

S.No. Activity Rural Urban

Although services produced for own consumption within households

Sector Men Women All

Given that such work remains unremunerated and minimally productive,

Sector Men Women All

Social group Rural Urban Total

Table 19. Proportion of women who regularly worked in maintenance of

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

State Rural Urban

Vikas Rawal ([email protected]) is with the Centre for Economic Studies

You might also like