8/7/2019 NSS survey

1/10

Employment-Unemployment Situation in the Nineties: Some Results from NSS 55th RoundSurveyAuthor(s): K. SundaramSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 11 (Mar. 17-23, 2001), pp. 931-933+935-940Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4410399 .

Accessed: 01/02/2011 02:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4410399?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4410399?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw

8/7/2019 NSS survey

2/10

S p e c i a l a r t i c l e sEmoymnUituationi n t h e Nineties

S o m e R e s u l t s f r o m N S S 5 5 t h R o u n d S u r v e yBased on a comparativeanalysis of the NSS Employment-Unemploymenturveys or 1993-94and 1999-2000, this paper examines, at the all-India level, the changes in: the size andstructureof workforce;the extent of unemploymentand underemployment;abour productivityand days worked;and wage earnings per worker and per head of population in rural andurban India. Key results include a slower growth of workforcerelative to that of population; areduction in the share and size of the workforcein agricultureand in community,social andpersonal services; and widespreadgains in labourproductivitygetting translated into equally

widespread and significant growth in average wage earnings per worker and per capita.K SUNDARAM

IIntroductionT he National Sample Survey

Organisation(NSSO) has recentlyreleased the report containing keyresults of the NSS 55th Round Employ-ment-UnemploymentSurvey covering theperiod July 1999 thru June 2000.1 Beingcanvassed over a separate set of house-holds, the results of the Employment-Unemployment Survey are also free of thecontroversies surroundingthe NSS 55thRound Consumer Expenditure Survey.2They thereforeprovide an opportunitytoreview thechangesin the size and structureof theworkforce andin the unemployment'situation n thecountry nthe 1990s througha comparative analysis of the results ofthe large-scale quinquennial surveys for1993-94and 1999-2000. The analysis willbe primarilyat the all-India level. But, atthis level of aggregation,we will considerseparately hefoursegments differentiatedby gender and rural-urban ocation: ruralmales; rural females; urban males; andurban females. We will examine thechanges in the size of the workforce andthe underlying workforce participationrates, the industrial distribution of thisworkforce, thechanges in labourproducti-vity and, the changes in the extent ofunemployment and underemployment in

the country. Finally, we examine thechanges in the averagenumberof daysworkedbya worker ntheusual tatus ndthe changes, in real terms,in the dailyaverage wage earningsof casual wagelabourers nd n theaverageyearly wageearnings'per capita.IISizeof Workforce

Forthecountryas a whole we have inthePopulationProjectionsor India andStates 1996-2016of RegistrarGeneralofIndia GoI1996],populationstimates orMarch1 of 1999and 2000 separatelyorthe four segments. By interpolation,weobtain estimates of population as onJanuary1, 2000 - the mid-poifltof theSurveyYear 1999-2000- separatelyorruralmales,ruralemales,urbanmalesandurban emales.3Applying o thesepopulation stimatesthesegment-specificcrude)worker-popu-lationratios(WPRsfor short)as pertheNSS 55th RoundSurvey, heestimatesofworkforce s onJanuary ,2000by genderand rural-urban ocation are obtained.The WPRs and thereforealso the work-force estimatesarethosebasedon "usualactivitycategory akingalso into consid-eration he subsidiary conomicstatusofpersons ategorisednotworking"' r the

Usual Status (PS+SS) categorisationforshort.Table1 presents heestimatesof popu-lationandworkforce s onJanuary ,2000by rural-urbanocation and by genderalongwith corresponding stimates forJanuary ,1994drawnromVisaria(1998)with WPRs drawnfrom the NSS 50thRound Employment-UnemploymentSurvey(July1993-June1994).Also pre-sented in this table are the underlying(crude)worker-populationatios drawnfromthe two quinquennial urveys.A strikingresult s the near-stagnationin the numberof female workers n thecountry sa whole andanabsolute educ-tion in the number f womenworkers nrural ndia.This reductionn thenumberof womenworkers nrural ndia,bya littleover 1.3 million, is just about offset byarise in the number of urbanwomenworkers 1.4 million).4The above is a consequenceof a sharpreductionn the WPRsbetween 1993-94and 1999-2000for both ruraland urbanwomen.Thisdecline n WPRs s,however,notconfined o women. t s infactpresentin each and all the four population-segments.This has the implication hat,in every segment,the rate of growthofworkforce verthesix-yearperiodwill belower han herateofgrowth fpopulationoverthe sameperiod.Thus, n thecountry

Economicand PoliticalWeekly March17, 2001 931

8/7/2019 NSS survey

3/10

as a whole, while the population isprojectedohavegrownatalittleover 1.75percentperannum pcpa)between1994and2000,over the sameperiod, he total(rural lusurban nd malesplusfemales)workforcewouldhavegrownby just0.81pcpa.As alreadynoted,the estimates orfemale workers as on January1, 2000implyvirtually ogrowthn theaggregateandnegativegrowth or women workersin rural ndia.Even n urban ndia, herateofgrowth fwomenworkers,t1.30pcpa smuch ower han he rateof growthof thepopulationfwomen n urban ndiawhichis projectedo havegrownat 3.05 pcpa.Threepointsneed to be noted in con-nectionwith the decline in the (crude)worker-populationatios notedabove.First,hedeclines n WPRsarenotoffsetby any significantrise in the ratio ofunemployedn thepopulationntheUsualStatus PS+SS)categorisation.For ruralfemales this ratio is unchangedat 3 per1,000,while for urban emalesthere s amarginaldecline from 10 per 1,000 in1993-94 o 8 per1,000 n 1999-2000.Theincreasenthisratio or ruralmales(from8 per1,000to 9 per 1,000)andfor urbanmales(from22 to 24 per 1,000)are alsomarginal.So that, crude labour forceparticipationatesWPRs)wouldalsoshowa declinebetween1993-94and1999-2000in all the fourpopulation egments.Second, n each of the four segments,age-specificWPRshavedeclinedbetween1993-94and1999-2000 n eachandeverysingle age-group(five-year age-groupsbetween 5 and 59 years and the open-ended nterval 60 yearsandabove')dis-tinguishedn the NSS Report Table2).So theobserveddecline n crudeworker-populationatios s notduemerely o shiftsin the age-structuref the population.Third,oa significant xtent, he reduc-tion nworker-populationatiosreflectsabeneficialrise in the student-populationratios notonly in the5-9 and the 10-14age-groups covering the primary andmiddle-schoolsystem, but also in the15-19and he20-24age-groupsndicatinga rising participationn secondaryandhigher-levelducation.5 hesegainshavebeenparticularlympressiveor rural irlsbelow20 yearsof age (Table 3).Inrelationo thelast notedpoint,how-ever,two caveats are in order:First, n the case of ruralwomen n the20-24age-group,hedecline nWPR from456per1,000 n 1993-94 o409 per1,000in 1999-2000)s muchgreaterhan he 10pointrise in the corresponding tudent-

population atio rom 19to 29 per 1,000.This is also the caseforruralmales n thethreeage-groups 0-14,15-19,and20-24,for urbanmales in the 10-14 and the15-19age-groups, nd,to a lesserextent,in the 20-24 age-groupas well.Second,as notedearlier, hedecline ntheage-specificWPRsextends o all agegroupsn all thefourpopulationegments.And, in age-groups25 yearsandabove,therearenooffsettingbeneficial ise n thestudent-populationatios.These declinesin the25 andaboveage-group ccountedfor over 40 percentof thedecline n thecrudeWPR orruralwomenandfor over59 percent of the decline n overallWPRforurbanwomen.However, t east or ruralwomen, WPRs on the Usual PrincipalStatus in the 25 and above age group(except50-54) arehigher n 1999-2000.So that,at leastin theircase the declinesin the WPRs(on theprincipalPlus Sub-sidiaryStatus) n thesegroups s due toentirely o declines n WPRson theSub-sidiaryStatus.But,sizeabledeclines ntheprincipal status WPRs in the 50-54,55-59 and 60+ age groupsfor males in

both rural and urban India remain anunresolvedpuzzle.Our state-level review of changes inworker-populationatios between 1993-94and1999-2000, otreportedere, howsthat,in all the foursegments he declinein WPRshasbeenwidespreadcross tatesand,even though he declineshave beenquite sharp n afew states, he decline nWPRsobservedatthe all-Indias not dueto a sharpbut concentrated ecline in afew states.

IllIndustrial istributionofWorkforceThe 55th Round reportpresents theindustrialdistributionof the workforce

separately or the four populationseg-ments but only at the 1-digitdetail. Forcompactness,we have aggregated crossgender ortherural nd heurbanocationsand acrossrural-urbanocation for esti-mates for gender.Table4 presentscom-parable stimates or1993-94drawn romSundaram2001).Table 1: Population, Workforce and Crude Worker-Population Ratios (WPRs)by Rural - Urban Residence and Gender In India, 1993-94 and 1999-2000

Segment Population Workforce WPRs1993-94 1999-2000 1993-94 1999-2000 1993-94 1999-2000Ruralmales 339,360 367,240 187,660 195,000 553 531Rural emales 317,950 344,640 104,290 103,050 328 299Ruralpersons 657,310 711,880 291,950 298,050 444 419Urbanmales 125,200 147,440 65,100 76,370 520 518Urban emales 112,590 135,010 17,340 18,770 154 139Urbanpersons 237,790 282,440 82,440 95,140. 347 337Males 464,560 514,680 252,760 271,370 545 527Females 430,540 479,650 121,630 121,820 286 254Persons 895,100 994,330 374,390 393,190 420 395Sources.'1993-94: Visaria 1998).1999-2000: Estimates of populationas on January1, 2000, by segment are obtainedbyinterpolationrom stimates forMarch ,1999 and March1,2000 in,PopulationProjectionsor/ndiaandStates, 1996-2016,RegistrarGeneralof India,NewDelhi.Workforceigurescomputedbyapplying segment-specific)workworker-populationatiosgiveninthe NSSO(2000).Table 2: Age-Specific WPRs by Location and Gender In India, 1993-94 and 1999-2000Per 1,000 Workforce Participation Rates on the Usual Status (PS+SS)Age-Group 1993-94 1999-2000RM RF UM UF RM RF UM UF5-9 11 14 5 5 6 7 3 2

10-14 138 141 66 45 . 91 96 49 3615-19 577 364 356 123 503 304 314 10520-14 859 456 674 183 844 409 658 15525-29 957 525 904 224 950 491 883 19430-34 983 585 964 272 979 555 960 23535-39 989 608 983 301 984 579 975 28540-44 987 606 981 320 983 586 974 28345-49 983 594 973 317 980 566 969 26750-54 970 542 942 286 953 515 935 26255-59 942 467 856 226 929 450 809 20760+ 699 247 442 113 639 218 402 94All ages 553 328 521 155 531 299 518 139Notes: RM: Rural Males; RF: Rural Females; UM: Urban Males; UF: Urban Females.Sources.' 1993-94: NSSO (1996); 1999-2000: NSSO (2000).

932 Economicand PoliticalWeekly March17, 2001

8/7/2019 NSS survey

4/10

Ininterpretinghechanges n industrialdistributionuring he 1990s thechangesin the rural-urban nd the male-femalecomposition f the workforceneedto bekept n view.Theshare f rural reasn theworkforce aserodedbya littleover2 per-centagepointsroma evelof 78percentin1993-94.The hare f womenworkersntheworkforceasalso allen rom22.5percentin 1993-94to 21 percent in 1999-2000.Both the above noted changes in thecomposition f the workforcewould tendto reduce he shareof theagriculturalndalliedactivitiesnthe otalworkforce venin theabsenceof anydecline n the shareof this sector n the individual egments.Thus,even with the 1993-94 shares, he1999-2000structuref workforcewouldhave reduced the share of industrydivision o zero(agriculture,orestryandfisheries) rom639 per 4,000 to 623 per1,000.In actual act, however, he shareof this sector n the workforcehas fallenin each and all of the four populationsegments.Consequently,n thetotal ruralplus urban and males plus females)workforce,heshareof theagriculturendalliedactivities ector ecords significantdeclineof over 4 percentage ointsfrom639per1,000 n 1993-94 o 598 per1,000in 1999-2000.Thisreductionn the shareof theagricultureector n the workforceis in factsharp nough o reducemargin-ally the absolutenumberof workers nagricultureor he irst imesince ndepen-dence:from 239 million in 1993-94 tounder236 million in 1999-2000.The miningand quarrying ector toosuffers a reduction,albeit small, in theabsolutenumber f workers.So that,overthe period 1993-94 to 1999-2000, theworkforcen theprimaryector sreducedby over4 million.Minor rosion n the shareas wellasthesize of the workforces also sufferedbytheelectricity, asandwater upply ectorwhere henumber f workers s lowerbya little over 350,000.Anothertriking hange n the ndustrialdistributionf the workforces thereduc-tion n the shareandsize of the workforceinindustry ivision9- community,ocialand personalservices, including repairservices.Froma shareof a littleunder10per cent of the workforcewith over 36million workers n 1993-94, this sectornow employsabout33 million workersand has a 8.4 percent share n the totalworkforcen1999-2000.n erms fgender,theshare f thissectornfemaleworkforcehas gone up marginally.

The manufacturingector (excludingrepair ervices)recordsa minorrisein itsshare n the aggregateworkforce from107per1,000to 111per1,000 between1993-94 and 1999-2000.This is despitea 1percentage ointreductionn its shareintheurbanworkforce ndslargelyduetoa risein the urban hare nthe totalwork-force. n heabsence fsuchashift heshareof the manufacturingectorwould haveremained irtually tagnant.n theaggre-gate,the number f workers n thissectorhas ncreased y3.7millionover he1990s.Two sectors, construction,and trade,hotelsandrestaurantsave ncreased heirrespective hares ntheworkforceneachand all of the four population egmentswhile woother ectors - ransport,torageand ommunication,ndinance, nsurance,real estate and business services- do soin threesegmentswithunchangedharesin the rural emale workforce.In theaggregatehebiggestgainernthe

share of workforcehas been the trade,hotelsandrestaurantector from7.6 percent in 1993-94to 10.4percent in 1999-2000. This sectorhas nowemergedas thethirdargestn terms f workforce behindthe agricultureand the manufacturingsectors.Thesizeof workforcenthissectorhas grown from 28.5 million to a littleunder41 millionovertheperiod1993-94to 1999-2000, e, at a compound ateof6.2 per cent per annum.In terms of gains in share of theworkforce,he construction ector s sec-ondonlyto thetrade,hotelsandrestaurantsector,withgains n all the foursegmentsand a 12 (per 1,000) point gain in theaggregate.Aggregate mploymentn thissector too has grownat 6.2 percent perannumin the period between the twosurveys froma littleover 12 million n1993-94 to 17.4 million in 1999-2000.Thetransport,torageandcommunica-tions sectorhas raised ts sharefrom29

Table 3: Age-Specific Student-Population Ratios by.Gender and Rural-UrbanLocation InIndia,1993-94 and 1999-2000(Per 1,000)RuralMales RuralFemales UrbanMales UrbanFemalesSPRs SPRs SPRs SPRs

Age-group 1993-94 1999-2000 1993-94 1999-2000 1993-94 1999-2000 1993-94 1999-20005-9 670 707 561 631 841 838 801 81010-14 743 777 546 635 866 873 812 82115-19 368 413 190 258 559 585 490 51720-24 80 86 19 29 205 218 122 158Sources. 1993-94: NSSO(1996);1999-2000: NSSO(2000).

Table 4: Per 1,000 Industrial Distribution of Workforce byLocation and Gender, All-India, 1993-94 and 1999-2000Panel A:ByRural-Urban ocationIndustryDivision 1993-94 1999-2000Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

0 Agriculture,orestry, isheries 784 123 639 761 88 5981 Mining ndquarrying 6 12 7 5 8 62-3 Manufacturing 70 236 107 74 227 1114 Electricity, as andwater 2 10 4 1 7 35 Construction 24 63 32 33 79 446 Trade,hotels and restaurants 43 194 76 51 269 1047 Transport,torageandcommunication 4 79 29 21 87 378 Finance, nsurance,realestateandbusiness services 3 34 10 4 41 139 Community,ocialandpersonalservices 54 248 97 49 195 84Workforce'000) 291,950 82,440 374,390 298,050 95,140 393,190PanelB:ByGender1993-94 1999-2000Males Females Males Females

0 Agriculture,orestry, isheries 573 774 531 7481 Mining ndquarrying 9 4 7 32-3 Manufacturing 112 94 115 1014 Electricity, as and water 5 0.4 4 0.35 Construction 42 14 57 176 Trade,hotels and restaurants 97 32 131 437 Transport, torage,communication 41 3 52 48 Finance, nsurance,real estate and business services 13 4 16 59 Community,ocialandpersonalservices 107 76 87 79Workforce'000) 252,760 121,630 271,370 121,820

Economic and Political Weekly March 17, 2001 933

8/7/2019 NSS survey

5/10

to 37 per 1,000 in the aggregate, houghits sharenfemaleworkforce asremainedvirtually nchanged.n the ruralareas, tssharehas increased y 50 percent- from14 per 1,000to 21 per 1,000, while theincreasen itsshare n theurbanworkforceis a moremodest10percent(from79 per1,000to 87 per 1,000).In the aggregate,this sectorhasabsorbed bout20 percentof the incrementalworkforce.The financial and business servicessector,with a workforce f littleunder5million about89 percent of themmales- now has a larger hare n theaggregateworkforcehan heminingandquarryingand the electricity,gas andwatersupplysectors akenogether. his ector asaddedover 1.3 millionpeopleto its workforce,which,on a base of 3.6 million, impliesanemploymentrowth ttherateof a littleunder5.3 per cent per annum.

IVGrowthnLabour roductivityThe ustreleased uick stimates fGDPfor 1999-2000make t possibleto assessthechangesbetween1993-94and 1999-2000 in grossvalueaddedper(usualsta-tus)worker tconstant1993-94pricesbybroad ndustry ivision.Theestimatesofthenumber f workers, rossvalueadded(GVA)at 1993-94pricesandof GVAperworkeras a measureof averageproduc-tivity perworker or 1993-94and 1999-2000,by industry ivisionat 1-digitdetailarepresentedn Table 5.Beforeproceedingwith heanalysis, hefollowing points may be noted:Let us begin by notingthat in imple-

mentingour measureof labourproducti-vity, namely,GVA per worker,we aredividing he totalGVA n agiven ndustrydivisionbythe number f workers eport-ing that industryas their principal(orsubsidiary) economic activity on themajorityimecriterion.ndoingso,we areimplicitlyassuming hatthe labour imeof each suchworker s spentonly in thatindustryand thatthe labour ime of onlythoseworkers reutilised n that ndustry.Staying within the Usual Statuscategorisation,nrespect f workers n theSubsidiarytatus,heassumptionhat heirlabour ime is spentalmostentirely n theIndustry/Occupationategoryassigned othemon the basisof timecriterionwouldappear o be reasonable.In the case of Usual PrincipalStatusworkers,heassignment f a worker o anIndustry/Occupationategory s donebyreferenceotheactivitynwhich heworkerhasspentrelatively arger imeduring hereferenceyear.It is possiblethatat leastsomeof the workerswouldbeengaged n

morethanone economicactivity.Infact,in 1993-94theproportion f Usual Prin-cipal statusworkersreportingparticipa-tion n anotherubsidiaryconomicactiv-itywas about34percent nrural reasanda littleover6 percent nurban reas.Also,both n principleand n practice,workersinagriculturentheprincipaltatus ouldbeengagednnon-agriculturalorkon thesubsidiarystatus,while principalstatusworkers n non-agricultureould be en-gagedin agricultural orkon thesubsid-iarystatus.6Focusingon therural egmentwherewehave a sizeable proportionof principalstatus workersreportingparticipationnanotherubsidiary conomicactivity, t isseen that,while the participationn non-agricultural ctivities of principal tatusworkers nagriculture asquitemarginal(about 6 per cent for ruralmales and3 percent for rural emales),31 percent(21 percent)of ruralmale(rural emale)principalstatusworkers n non-agricul-turewere engaged in agricultureas an

Table 6: Dimensions of Unemployment by Gender and Rural-Urban Location,India 1993-94 and 1999-2000PanelA:CurrentDailyStatus UnemploymentRatesRuralMales RuralFemales UrbanMales UrbanFemales

1993-94 56 56 67 1051999-2000 72 68 72 98Panel B:Usual Status UnemploymentRates for he Educated(Per 1,000)Segment Secondaryand Above Graduateand Above1993-94 1999-2000 1993-94 1999-2000

RuralMales 89 69 134 107RuralFemales 243 204 323 351UrbanMales 69 66 64 66UrbanFemales 207 163 203 163Source:Table 16, NSS (2000).

Table 5: Workers, Gross Domestic Product (at 1993-94 Prices) and Labour Productivity by Industry Division In India,1993-94 and 1999-2000Industry ivision 1993-94 1999-2000GDPat 1993-94 Workforce GVAPer GDPat 1993-94 Workforce GVAPer Worker Rogof GVAPrices ('000) Worker Prices ('000) (Rs) PerWorker(Rs Crore) (RsCrore) (pcpa)0 Agriculturendalliedactivities 241967 239096 10120 290334 235597 12323 3.341 Miningndquarrying 20092 2681 74942 26446 2241 118010 7.862 and 3 Manufacturing 125493 196763Less RepairServices 97 2691 47062 and 3 - Excluding epair ervice 122802 39914 30767 192057 43679 43970 6.134 Electricity, as and water 18984 1396 135989 28225 1039 271655 12.225 Construction 40593 12147 33418 58728 17454 33647 0.116 Trade,hotels + restaurants 99369 28502 34864 168355 40946 41116 2.797 Transport,torageand communication 51131 10773 47462 84477 14623 57770 3.338 Financing,nsurance,etcLess: GDP ndwellings 90084 14654643507 51391(8)- Less GDP on dwelling 46577 3658 127329 95155 4984 190921 6.989 Community socialservicesIncluding epair ervices 93632 1521172691 47069 (including7) 96323 36281 26549 156823 33181 47263 10.01AllActivityexcludingGDPin dwelling) 737838 374390 19708 1100600 393,190 28120 6.10

EconomicandPoliticalWeekly March17, 2001 935

8/7/2019 NSS survey

6/10

additional subsidiary economic activity.While the above would suggest the needfor cautionin interpreting he estimates ofGVA-per worker in a given industrydivision as a strict measure of labourproductivity in that industry, there is nopractical way of adjusting the estimate ofworkers in the different Industrydivisionsto reflect such cross-participation.7

Second, since there is virtually noemployment correspondingtogross value-added in the form of rentals from owner-ships of dwellings, the same is omittedfrom the GDP estimates for IndustryDivision 8: Financing, Insurance, RealEstate and Business Services, and fromaggregate GDP.Third,since in our workforce estimatesworkers engaged in Repair Services (In-dustry Group 97) are clubbed with thecorresponding 1-digit Division 9 - Com-munity, Social and Personal Services -while estimates of GVA in repairservicesare now mergedwith the estimates of GDPoriginating in Manufacturing (IndustryDivisions 2+3), the GVA from repairservices are deducted from the estimatesfor manufacturingand merged with theGVA-estimates for Industry Division 9.So that the workforce and the GVA esti-mates are consistent with one another.

Finally, in respect of the capital-inten-sive infrastructureectors, the low-level ofemployment,and thecorrespondinglyhighlevel of GVA per worker,must be seen incontext: heirrole nemploymentgenerationin the economy is indirect by supportingthegrowthof other sectors of theeconomy.We may now turn to an analysis of ourestimates of GVA perworkerpresentedinTable 5.

Taking the economy as a whole, theGVA perworker has grown, in real terms,from Rs 19,708 to Rs 28,120, i e, at acompound annual rate of over 6 per centper annum.In the agriculture(and allied activities)sector, which still employs 60 per cent ofthe workforce or a little over 235 million,the GVA per worker has grown at a littleover3.3 percentperannum rom Rs 10,120to Rs 12,323 at constant 1993-94 prices.Apartfromagriculture,the three largestemploying sectors are Manufacturing(44million), Trade, Hotels and Restaurants(41 million) and Community, Social andPersonal Services (33 million). In thesethreesectors, average labourproductivitymeasuredby GVA per worker has grownat an annual compound rate of 6.1; 2.8;and 10.1 per cent, respectively.

Among the only two other sectorsemployingclose to or above 15 millionworkers,namely,Construction17.4 mil-lion workers)andTransport, torageandCommunication14.6 million workers),the GVA per workerhas virtually tag-natedntheConstructionector.However,in the Transport, torageandCommuni-cations ector,averageabour roductivityin realtermshasgrownat3.3 percentperannum.In the two other infrastructureectors(Electricity,Gas andWater) ndFinance,Insuranceand Businessservices, labourproductivityhas grown at, respectively,12.2 and 6.3 percent per annum.Overall,with the sole exceptionof theConstruction ector,labourproductivityhasgrown n real ermsatclose toor over3 percentperannum n all thesectorsoftheeconomy.In theeconomyas a wholeand n two of thethree argestemployingsectors utside griculture,ealgrossvalue-addedperworkerhasgrownat over 6 percent per annumover the six yearsfrom1993-94 to 1999-2000.

VUnemploymentndUnderemploymentWe present, n Table 6, estimates ofcurrentdaily statusunemploymentatesby gender and rural-urbanocation for1993-94 and 1999-2000.At the all-India evel, this widely ac-

cepted measureof open unemploymentindicatesa worseningof the unemploy-mentsituation verthe 1990s n threeout

of the ourpopulationegments,withurbanwomenas thesoleexception.The ncreasein the daily-statusunemploymentateisthe steepest or ruralmales(29 percent)followed by rural emales(21 percent).Forurbanmales,at 7 percentthe ncreaseis relativelymodest.This increase n theunemploymentateforruralmales has tobe seen in the context of the rise in theshare of casual labour from338 to 362per 1,000) anda decline in the shareofself-employedamongruralmaleworkerson the usualstatus principal lussubsid-iary). Given that the daily status unem-ploymentrate bettercaptures he unem-ployment mong asual abourershan hatamong heself-employedwherewe couldbe faced with the phenomenon f workspreading)he rise in thedailystatusun-employmentateamongruralmalescouldwell be due to the changein the status-composition f theworkforce SundaramandTendulkar1988].Beforeproceedingurther,we maynotea reduction n theunemploymentatesontheusualprincipal tatus or theeducated- thosewith 'secondary nd above'levelof education salso forthesub-setof thosewith 'graduate nd above' level of edu-cation in almostall the fourpopulationsegments.Theexceptionwasrural emaleswith 'graduate nd above' level of edu-cationwhoexperiencedn ncreasenusualstatusunemploymentate rom323 to 351per 1,000 (Table6, PanelB).One of the indicators f underemploy-mentamong hoseclassifiedas workers ntheUsual principal lussubsidiary)tatusavailable from the NSS Employment-

Table 7: Per 1,000 Distribution of Adult (15 and above) Usually Working Persons(Principal and Subsidiary) Who Had Sought or Were Available for Additional Work byGender and Rural-Urban Location, All-India, 1993-94 and 1999-2000Category 1993-94 1999-2000Not Soughton Soughton Not Soughton SoughtonSought MostDays Some Days Sought MostDays Some DaysRuralMalesSelf-employed 948 22(8) 30(11) 925 28(10) 47(20)Casual labourers 887 44(15) 69(27) 829 71(21) 99(46)Allworkers 929 29(9) 42(16) 894 43(14) 64(28)RuralFemalesSelf-employed 968 12(5) 20(8) 957 20(5) 23(10)

Casual labourers 912 35(13) 53(21) 874 47(19) 79(35)Allworkers 945 22(8) 33(12) 924 31(11) 45(20)UrbanMalesSelf-employed 959 23(11) 19(8) 940 24(11) 37(15)Casual laboruers 890 55(21) 55(18) 861 53(18) 86(38)Allworkers 955 24(9) 21(7) 938 25(10) 37(15)UrbanFemalesSelf-employed 953 23(10) 24(10) 943 24(10) 33(15)Casuallabourers 903 47(19) 50(12) 884 46(13) 70(23)Allworkers 945 29(11) 26(8) 939 27(10) 34(10)Notes. Figureswithinbracketsrelatesto thesum of theproportion fpersons(per 1,000)whosoughtorwere available oradditionalwork orreasons of (i) notenoughwork' r(ii) notenoughworkandtosupplement ncome'.Sources. 1993-94:NSSO(1996);1999-2000: NSSO(2000).

936 Economic and Political Weekly March 17, 2001

8/7/2019 NSS survey

7/10

Unemployment Surveys is the proportionof such workers(adults above 15 years ofage) who had sought or were available foradditional work - either on most days oron some days of the year. Those whoreportedhemselves asseekingor availablefor additional work are further classifiedby reasons for seeking or being availablefor additional work, with 'to supplementincome'; 'not enough work'; and 'notenough work and to supplement income'as theprincipalrubricsof 'reasons'. In thistabulation, the proportionof usual statusworkersreporting hatthey had not sought(nor were available for) additional workmay be treated as those who perceivethemselves to befully employed duringthe365-day reference period.Table 7 presentsfor 1993-94 and 1999-2000 the per 1,000 distribution of adultusually working persons as between thosewho had not sought (nor were availablefor) aditionalwork, those who had soughtor were available for additional work onmost days, and, those who did so on somedays. To focus on the self-perceivedunderutilisationof labour time, we alsopresent the proportionof those who hadsought additional work - separately forthose who did so on most days and thosewho did so on some days - who reportedeither 'not enough work' or 'not enoughwork and to supplement income' as thereason. This is presented separately bygenderandrural-urbanocation andwithineach population segment this informationis presented separately for the self-em-ployed workers and casual labourers inaddition to all workers.A strikingresult to emerge from Table 7is the reduction over the 1990s in theproportion of usual status workers whohad not sought additional work in everysegment and category of workers distin-guished. This points to an unambiguousincrease in self-perceived underemploy-mentamongthose classified as workersontheUsualStatus(principaland subsidiary).The decline in theproportionof workerswho had not sought additional work or,equivalently, the rise in the proportionwho had sought additional work is thehighest for casual labourersin each of thefour segments. And, among casuallabourers t is the highest for ruralmales,followed by rural females, urban malesand urban females, in that order.

Significantly, except for rural femaleself-employed workers,a majorportionofthe reduction in the proportion who hadnot sought additional work is accounted

for by an increase in the proportion ofthose who had sought additional work on'some days'. This is overwhelmingly thecase among all the categories of urbanworkers- males and females alike. In factamong urban casual labourers there is areduction, albeit marginal, in the propor-tion who had sought or were available foradditional work 'on most days'.

Also noteworthyis the fact that,even inrural areas where there is some rise in theproportionof those who had sought addi-tional work 'on most days', among them,thosecitingeither'notenoughwork' or 'notenough work and to supplement income',accounted for only about a third of suchcases. Those citing either of these reasons,however, accountedfor50 percentor moreof the rise in the proportionof those whohadsoughtadditional work 'on some days'in almost all cases - with the category 'allurban female workers' as the exception.In sum, while there is clear evidence ofincrease in self-perceived underemploy-ment, much of this is reflected in an in-

crease in the proportion of usual statusworkers who sought additional work on'some days' rather than 'on most days'.Also, even among those adding to theproportion of workers who had soughtadditional work 'on most days', the prin-cipal reason was the need to supplementincome rather than lack of work per se.This leads us to consider next the changesin the averagenumber of days worked andthe changes in the average daily wageearnings of casual labourers in the fourpopulation segments.

VIDaysWorked ndAverageDailyWageEarningsThe NSS Employment Reportprovidesestimates of average daily wage earningsreceived by casual labourersby genderandrural-urbanocation. ForruralIndia,theseestimates are separately available in re-spect of employment in public works,employment in agriculture and employ-

Table 8: Average Daily Wage Earnings Received by Adult (15-59) Casual WageLabourers In Rural India by Gender and Activity, All-India, 1993-94 and 1999-2000(Rupees)Activity RuralMales RuralFemales1993-94 1999-2000 Rateof 1993-94 1999-2000 Rateof

(at1993-94 Growth (at 1993-94 GrowthPrices) (Per Cent Prices) (Per Centper Annum) per Annum)1 Publicworks 24.65 30.89 3.83 18.52 24.87 5.042 Casual labour nagriculture 21.59 25.48 2.80 15.12 17.99 2.943 Casual labour nnon-agriculture 30.15 37.49 3.70 17.46 23.49 5.074 Casual labour n allactivities 23.18 28.65 3.59 15.33 18.51 3.19Notes. Adjustment or Inflationbetween 1993-94 and 1999-2000 has been made by reference toConsumerPrice Index orAgricultural abourers CPIALwithbase 1986-87=100).The value ofCPIALmonthlyiguresaveragedoverthe12months,July hru une of theSurveyYear) or1993-94 and1999-2000, were, respectively,194.74;and, 309.17.Sources. 1993-94:NSSO(1996);1999-2000:NSSO(2000).

Table 9: Average Wage Earnings Per Day Received by Adult (15-59) Casual WageLabourers In Urban Areas by Industry and Gender, All-India, 1993-94 and 1999-2000(Rupees)UrbanMales UrbanFemales1993-94 1999-2000 Rate of 1993-94 1999-2000 Rate ofIndustry (at1993-94 Growth (at 1993-94 GrowthGroup Prices) (PerCent Prices) (PerCentperAnnum) perAnnum)

0 25.50 30.29 2.91 16.49 19.64 2.961 29.60 47.81 8.32 22.59 34.80 7.472-3 33.27 40.19 3.20 16.09 26.07 8.384 39.09 45.23 2.46 23.17 NA NA5 37.62 42.34 1.99 24.84 30.61 3.546 28.67 34.28 3.02 21.31 28.84 5.177 34.65 39.06 2.02 19.93 30.69 7.468 28.57 40.35 5.92 31.43 30.00 (-)0.779 28.16 34.06 3.22 19.31 17.75 (-)1.391-9 33.79 39.75 2.74 19.51 24.94 4.180-9 32.38 38.53 2.94 18.49 23.28 3.91Notes. Adjustment or inflationbetween 1993-94 and 1999-2000 has been made by reference toConsumerPrice Index orIndustrialWorkers CPIIWwithbase 1982=100).The valueof CPIIW(monthlyiguresaveragedoverthe12months,July hru une oftheSurveyYear) or1993-94 and1999-2000, were, respectively,264 and433.33.Sources. 1993-94:NSSO(1996);1999-2000: NSSO(2000).

Economic and Political Weekly March 17, 2001 937

8/7/2019 NSS survey

8/10

mentin non-agriculture.Withinagricul-ture,estimates reseparately vailablebyoperations.For urbanIndia, these esti-matesareseparately vailableby industrydivisionsat 1-digitdetail.Tables8 and9 present espectively orrural and urbanIndia the estimates ofaverage daily wage earnings of adult(15-59) casual abourersor 1993-94and1999-2000.Forrural ndia, he1999-2000estimateshavebeenadjustedor inflationbetween 1993-94 and 1999-2000by ref-erence to the ConsumerPrice Index forAgricultural Labourers (CPIAL withbase1986-87=100)while for urban ndiathis adjustment as been madeby refer-ence to the ConsumerPrice Index forIndustrialWorkers (CPIIW with base1982=100).It is readily eenthat, nrural ndia, heaverage ailywageearnings f adultmalecasual labourers inding employment npublicworkshave grown,in real terms,by over 3.8 percent perannumand thatthe rate of growthof real averagedailywage arningsf ruralmale asual abourersemployedn non-agriculturalctivities sonlymarginallyower,at 3.70percentperannum.Thegrowth n realaveragedailywageearnings f malecasual abourersnagriculture,hough lower than that forthoseemployednnon-agriculturalctivi-ties by nearly1 percentagepoint,is stillquite ignificant t2.8percentperannum.For rural emale casual labourers, herateof growth f realdaily wage earningsof thoseemployed n publicworksand nnon-agriculturalctivities s substantiallyhigher han hat or malesat a little over5 percent per annum.For ruralfemalecasual abourersmployed n agriculturalactivities, the rate of growth of theiraveragedailywage earningsn real termswas over 2.9 percent per annum.Overall,orbothmalesand emales,realaveragedaily wage earningsof casuallabourersnrural ndiahavegrownatclosetoorabove3 percentperannumover theperiod1993-94 to 1999-2000.For asualwage abourersnurbanndia,with heexceptionof urbanemalework-ers employed in IndustryDivisions 8(Financial nd BusinessServices)and9(Social,CommunityndPersonal ervices)whohavesuffered decline n realaveragedaily wage earnings,8 eal averagedailywageearnings avegrown or bothmalesandfemalesin all industrial ctivitycat-egoriesat close to orabove 3 percentperannumn mostcases.Therateofgrowth nrealaveragedaily wage earnings f urban

male casual abourers mployed n cons-truction and in transport,storage andcommunicationasbeen omewhatlower,butstillsignificant t2percentperannum.With the two exceptionsnoted above(Industry ivisions8 and9),urbanemalecasual abourers aveexperienced fasterrateof growthof realaveragedaily wageearnings elative o themalecounterpartsin all other cases. Takingall industriestogether,eal verage ailywage arnings furban emalecasual abourers avegrownat close to4 percentperannum,whileforurbanmale casual wage labourers hisgrowth ates closeto3percentperannum.Thus, in all the four populationseg-ments, average daily wage earningsofcasual abourers avegrownat a ratecloseto orabove 3 percentperannum vertheperiodcoveredby the two surveys.Thiswidespread and significant growth inaveragedailywage earningss fullycon-sistent with the strongand generalisedgrowth n labourproductivitywitnessedover the same period.Next, we examine he issue of averagenumber f daysworkedduringheyearofusuallyemployed Principal lusSubsid-iaryStatus)workers.This spossible incethe surveys simultaneously anvass theactivity status of the individualon theusualandthecurrent aily(aswell as thecurrentweekly)statuses. nprinciple,hiscan be done for each categoryof usualstatusworkers uch as theself-employed(further istinguished y broad ndustry),theregularwage/salaried orkers nd hecasual labourers.9However, publishedtables reporting uch a cross-tabulation(Usual (PS+SS)x Daily Status)restrictsthe scope of such analysisto the broadcategories fworkers,heunemployedndthose outside the labour orce.10Table 10 presentsour computionofaveragenumber f daysworked,averagedays in unemployment nddays outsidethe labourforce, of those classified asworkers on the Usual (PrincipalplusSubsidiary) tatusperyear n 1993-94and

1999-2000 at the all-India level for thefour population segments.For ruralmales, there is a reduction ofdays at work of 4 days in the year, on theaverage, n 1999-2000compared o 1993-94and an off-setting increase in the numberof days in unemployment with no changein the number of days not in the labourforce. In the case of urban males the re-duction in the number of days worked by2 days is offset byan increaseinthe numberof days outside the labour force, with nochange inthe numberof days inunemploy-ment. So that, at least for the urban maleworkers on the usual status, the rise in theaveragerate of daily-status unemploymentwould follow not from an increase in thenumberof days in unemploymentbut froma reduction in the number of days spentin the labour force.In the case of female usual statuswork-ers, both among rural women and amongurbanwomen, there is a reduction in thenumber of days in the year that is spentoutside the labour force on the average.In the case of rural females, a reductionof 9-days in the number of days outsidethe labour force is offset by an increasein the number of days worked (of 5 daysfrom 241 to 246 days) and an increase inthe numberof days in unemployment.Thiswouldsuggestthat,at eastamongthe usualstatus workers among rural females, theincreasednumberofdaysin unemploymentis not due to anyfall in the averagenumberof days worked - which in fact, shows anincrease - but is due to a shift in dailystatusfromthecategory 'outside the labourforce' to both components - theemployedand the unemployed - of labour force.Inthe case of usual status workersamongurbanwomen, there was an increase of 9days in employment on the averageduringthe year - largely reflecting a shift out ofdays not in the labour force (a reductionof 8 days) and a small (1-day) reductionin the number of days in unemployment.What about the overall impact on in-come per worker and income per capita?

Table 10: Activity-Status Distribution of Person-Days Per Year of Usually Employed(Principal plus Subsidiary Status) Workers by Gender and Rural-Urban Location,All-India, 1993-94 and 1999-2000Activity tatus RuralMales RuralFemales UrbanMales UrbanFemales1993-94 1999- 1993-94 1999- 1993-94 1999- 1993-94 1999-2000 2000 2000 2000At work 331 327 241 246 345 343 279 288Unemployed 15 19 11 15 10 10 9 8Outside abour orce 19 19 112 103 9 11 76 68Notes. The above numbersarebased on Table 22 of the NSS EmploymentReport Dec 2000) on: Per1,000 distribution f person-daysof usuallyemployed (principal nd subsidiary tatus) bytheirbroadcurrentdailystatus forvarioussurvey periods.

938 Economicand PoliticalWeekly March17, 2001

8/7/2019 NSS survey

9/10

Thesignificant eductionn the worker-populationatios nall the fourpopulationsegmentscombinedwith the increase ncurrentdaily statusunemployment atenotedearlierhaveevokedconcernsaboutwhether he workerpopulation an sup-porta muchlargerproportion f depen-dent populationat rising levels of realincomepercapita. ndirectly,his concernalso hasa bearingon theongoingdebateon the genuinenessor otherwiseof thedecline n rural ndurban overtybetween1993-94and 1999-2000revealedby theresults of the 55th Round ConsumerExpenditure urveyfor 1999-2000.We have alreadynoted that at the all-India evel therehas been a fairlyrobustgrowth,n real erms, n theaveragedailywage earnings of adult casual wagelabourers atclosetoorover3percentperannum-inall he ourpopulation egments.Therehas also been a rise in the numberof daysworked, ntheaverage,byfemaleusual tatusworkers mongbothrural ndthe urbanpopulations.Tendingto offsetthishas beenthereductionn theaveragenumber fdaysworked, yabout1percentor less, amongmale usualstatusworkersin both ruraland the urbanareas of thecountry.Whatwouldbe theneteffect notonlyon the averageearningsperworkerbut,moremportantly,nearningsercapita?In orderto answer this question weconstruct syntheticestimateof 'yearlywageearnings' f theusual tatusworkersin he ourpopulationegments.From his,combiningcross ender,stimates f 'wageearnings' ercapitaarederived eparatelyfor the ruraland the urbanpopulations.Essentially,we assumethat all usualstatusworkers n a population egment

derivea labour ncomeequal o theprod-uct of the number f daysworked n theyear imes heaveragedailyaveragewageearnings averagedacross all activities/industriesexcluding public works- re-ceived by casualwage labourers n thatsegment.For this purpose,we take theaveragedailywageearnings eportedorcasualwage abourersor allages' ratherthan that for adult, prime age (15-59)workersdiscussed earlier.On a view that the average wage in-comesof allregularwage/salaried orkerswouldbe higher han hatreceivedby thecasual labourers ndthat,the growth nlabourproductivity nd hence in labourincomes of those (self-employed withasset-base) who hire the casual wagelabourerswouldbeat eastas muchas thatimplied by the growthin averagedailywage earningsn real erms, heestimatesof average 'wage earnings'derived asoutlinedabove,can be takenasindicativeof thedirection ndbroad rder f magni-tude of the extentof change n earningsperworkerandperhead of the ruralandtheurban opulationsnthecountry.Theseestimatesarepresentedn Table 11.It is readilyseen that, in ruralIndia,whileaverageyearly 'wageearnings'per(usualstatus)workerhas grownat closeto 3.6 percent perannum n real terms,on a per capitabasis these earningsatconstant1993-94 prices have grown atover 2.5 percentperannumover the sixyears 1993-94to 1999-2000.Over hesameperiod,nurbanndia oo,averagewageearnings,nreal erms,havegrownat3.2 percentperannumon a perworker asisandat2.7percentperannumon a per capitabasis.

Directionally t least,the above resultson 'wageearnings'per capitaare consis-tentwithadecline npoverty atios nbothruraland urban ndia.Further nalysisatthe state-level s inprogressoseewhetherandhow far this resultwouldhold goodat the level of individual tates.Needlessto say, we also needmoredataandmoreanalysisof theemployment urveyresultscross-tabulated y householdper capitaconsumer expenditure based on theabridgedchedule anvassed ver hesameset of households.To summarise he key results:Between1993-94and1999-2000 herehasbeen a significantdecline n thecrudeworker-populationatios n allthe4 popu-lation egments esultingnaslower rowthof workforcerelative to the growth inpopulationand an absolutereduction nthe numberof women workers n ruralIndiawhichis just aboutoffset by a risein the numberof urbanwomenworkers.To a significantextent,the reduction nworker-populationatios eflectsa benefi-cial rise in the student-populationatios.In termsof industrialdistribution,heshare of the agricultureectorrecordsasignificantdecline to just below 60 percent to reduce marginally he absolutenumberof workers n agricultureor thefirst time since independence.Also, re-cording decline nshare nd n thenumberof workers n the community, ocial andpersonal ervicessectorwithtrade,hotelsandrestaurants;onstruction; nd,trans-port,communicationsndstorage ectorsrecording izeablegrowthin both shareandnumberof workers.In termsof labourproductivity,xceptfor heconstructionector, hegrossvalue-

Table 11: EstimatedAverage Yearly 'Wage Earnings' Per Workerand Per Capita(at Constant 1993-94 Prices) In Rural and UrbanIndia, 1993-94 and 1999-2000RuralMales RuralFemales RuralPersons UrbanMales UrbanFemales UrbanPersons

Population'000) 1993-94 339,360 317,950 657,310 125,200 112,590 237,7901999-2000 367,240 344,640 711,880 147,440 135,010 282,440Workforce'000) 1993-94 187,660 104,290 291,950 65,100 17,340 82,4401999-2000 195,000 103,050 298,050 76,370 18,770 95,140Averagenumber f days worked 1993-94 331 241 NA 345 279 NA1999-2000 327 246 NA 343 288 NAAveragedailywage earningsof casual labour(allages) 1993-94 22.82 15.15 20.21 31.81 18.07 28.151999-2000 28.24 18.27 24.97 37.93 22.97 34.70Yearlywageearnings' Rs crore) 1993-94 141748 38078 179825 71444 8742 801851999-2000 180072 46315 226387 99357 12417 111774Earnings erworker Rs) 1993-94 7553 3651 6159 10975 5042 97261999-2000 9234 4494 7596 13010 6615 11748Earnings er capita (Rs) 1993-94 4177 1198 2736 5706 776 33721999-2000 4903 1344 3180 6739 920 3958Rateofgrowth percent per annum)earningsperworker 3.41 3.52 3.56 2.88 4.63 3.20Rateofgrowth percent per annum)of earningspercapita 2.71 1.95 2.54 2.81 2.86 2.70

Note. Inflation-Adjustmentfor ruralIndia has been made by reference to Consumer Price Index for AgriculturalLabourers (CPIALwith base 1986-87 = 100). Forurban India, this adjustment has been made by reference to Consumer Price Index for IndustrialWorkers (CPIIWwith base, 1982=100).

EconomicandPoliticalWeekly March17, 2001 939

8/7/2019 NSS survey

10/10

addedperworker has grown significantlyin all the sectors with a 6 per cent perannumgrowthin the economy as a wholeand in two of the three largest employingsectorsoutsideof agriculture.This signifi-cant growth in labour productivity hastranslatedinto an equally significant andwidespreadgrowth in daily average wageearningsof casual wage labourersboth formales and females and in both rural andurban India. In turn, this growth in realwage earnings, and a rise in the numberof days worked by females, has beensufficient to more than offset both a re-duction in the crude worker-populationratios and a marginal reduction in theaveragenumber of days worked for maleworkers, to raise average wage earningsper capita at over 2.5 per cent per annumin both rural and urban India over theperiod 1993-94 and 1999-2000. This re-sult is consistent with a decline, over thesameperiod,in povertyratiosin both ruraland urban India.Further nalysis,especially of datacross-tabulated by household per capitaconsumer expenditure, is needed to seewhether and how far the all-India resultspresentedabove hold good at the level ofindividual states. I13

Notes[Thanks redue omycolleague,SureshTendulkar,for useful discussions. Disclaimers apply.]

1 NSSO, GoI, Report No 455 (55/10)EmploymentndUnemploymentn India1999-2000,KeyResults,NSS 55thRoundJuly1999-June2000,December2000. Hereafter, eferredto as NSS EmploymentReport.)2 It needs to be stressed that the canvassingofthe Consumer Expenditure and theEmployment-Unemployment Surveys overdifferent ets of households n the 55th RoundSurveyhas not resulted n any dimunition ofthenumber f persons surveyed n this Roundrelative othe50th Roundwhen bothscheduleswerecanvassed ver hesameset ofhouseholds.If anything, he numberof persons surveyednow is higher.Thus,at the all-India evel, thenumber f personssurveyed n 1999-2000was509, 779 in ruralIndia and 309,234 in urbanIndia,compared o, 356,351 and 208,389 inthe two locations respectively in 1993-94.3 Usingthe mplicitexponentialgrowthrate, hetotalall-Indiapopulation s interpolated.Theoverall urban hare s similarly projectedandtheruralpopulation s obtained as a residual.The share of males within each location isseparately interpolatedand used to derivepopulation stimatesof ruralmales andurbanmales. The estimates for rural females andurban emales are derivedresidually.4 Two notes of caution are in orderin respectof this and all other results on the size of theworkforce whether n theaggregateor in any

given Industrydivision - in 1999-2000.First, all estimates of workforce size areconditional on the underlying populationestimatesnthefourpopulation egmentswhichhave been taken from the projectionsputoutby the registrargeneralof India in 1996. Theresultsof theongoingPopulationCensuscouldyield different sets of estimates for India'spopulationas on January1, 2000.Second, estimatesof totalworkforce n thefoursegments have been derivedby usingthecrudeworker-population atiosas revealedbythe 55th Round EmploymentSurvey. Sincethese WPRs are weighted averages of age-specificWPRsweighted by shareof eachage-groupin the totalpopulation n a segment asrevealedbythesurvey,we are neffectassumingthesurvey-based ge-distributiono be correct.This assumptiontoo may be shown up asinappropriate by the results of the 2001PopulationCensus.5 Using the age-distributionas given in theSurvey Report, for 1993-94 and 1999-2000,it can be shown that the decline in the WPRsin the 5-24 age-groupaccountedfor the bulkof the decline in the overall WPR in threeofthe four population segments - with urbanfemales as an exception. In the case of urbanmales,the decline in theWPRs n the5-9, 10-14, 15-19and the 20-24 age-groups,weightedby their respective populationshares, morethanoffsets the increase n thecontribution fthepopulationaged25 andabove to theoverallWPR in 1999-2000 relative to 1993-94.6 Theavailable abulationermits nlythisbroad,agriculture/non-agriculture lassification byIndustry in respect of subsidiaryeconomicactivity of those similarly classified on theUsual PrincipalStatus.7 An alternativeapproachwould be to generatean industrialdistributionof employedpersondays on the basis of the currentdaily statusandderive estimatesof GVA per person dayof employment ordifferent ndustrydivisions.Presentlyavailabletabulationsprovideonly athreefold industrial categorisation of totalemployed person days: agriculture,mining,manufacturing, lectricity,gas and waterandconstruction, and services.8 This decline in daily average wage earningsforurban emale workers nIndustryDivisions8 and9, wherelabourproductivityhasgrown,on the average,at over 6 and 10 percent perannumover thesameperiod s indeedpuzzling.By the sametoken, he rise nrealaveragedailywage earnings of urban casual labourersengaged in constructionactivity(at2 percentper annum for males and 3.5 per cent perannum orfemales) nasituationwhereaveragelabour productivity has remained virtuallystagnantis equally puzzling.9 This 3x3 activity status classification isavailable nlyat heall-Indiaevel but eparatelyfor the four population segments. For theindividualstates we only have the per 1,000distribution of person days (as betweenemployed person days, unemployed persondays and person days not in labourforce) oftheusuallyemployed principal ndsubsidiarystatus)persons butseparatelyby genderandruralurban location. In this tabulation,theproportionemployed on the daily statuscanbe equivalently nterpretedas the proportion

of the week (7 person daysper person) n thatactivity on the currentdaily status and thusconverted to person days per year - inemployment, unemploymentand outside thelabourforce - of all usual status workers onthe average.10 A simple mappingof usual statusworkers na category- say casual labour n agriculture- into estimated person days in that samecategorywill not be appropriate s thepersonscontributing hosepersondays may not all oronly come from the category of usual statusworkers in that category. This is sharplyhighlightedwhen we tryandmappersondaysin regular wage/salariedwork in agricultureof ruralmales 21,348)intousual tatusworkersin that category (23,440). Each one wouldhave to work more than 9 days in a week!11 Incidentally, ince the referenceperiodfortheabridged schedule was a uniform 30-dayreferenceperiod for all items of expenditureandin thecase of the NSS 50th RoundSurveyfor1993-94 these estimateswouldbe freefromproblems of comparability on this count.Admittedly these are not entirely free fromproblemsof comparability arisingfrom theuse of an 'abridged' schedule rather than adetailed schedule. However, given that thedirectionof the bias in the resultant stimateswould be to push down rather hanpush upthepercapitaconsumerexpenditure, declinein poverty ratios establishedby reference toestimate of consumer expenditure from theemploymentsurveycanvassedover a separateset of households, would be robust. Fulleranalysisof the rich data set generatedby the55th Round Employment-UnemploymentSurvey is absolutely essential beforeentertaining uggestionsof a freshlarge-scalesurveyusingup veryscarceresources f moneyand trainedsurvey manpower.

ReferencesNational Sample Survey Organisation (1996):Sarvekshana,Vol 20, No 1, 68th Issue,July-September.- (2000):Reporton 455 (55/10) Employment ndUnemployment in India 1999-2000, KeyResultsNSS55thRoundJuly 1999-June2000,December.RegistrarGeneralof India 1996): CensusofIndia1991, Population Projections for India andStates 1998-2016, Report of the TechnicalGroupon Population Projectionsconstitutedby the Planning Commission, August, NewDelhi.Sundaram,K and Suresh D Tendulkar(1988):'Toward an Explanation of Inter-regionalVariations n Poverty and Unemployment n

Rural ndia' nTN Srinivasan ndPK Bardhan(eds), RuralPovertyin SouthAsia, ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.Sundaram,K (2001): 'Economic Development:Employment and Occupational Diversi-fication' in KSrinivasanandMViassoff(eds),Population-Development Nexus in India:Challenges for the New Millennium, TataMcGraw Hill, New Delhi.Visaria,Pravin 1998): 'Enemployment ndYouthinIndia:Level,NatureandPolicy Implication',EmploymentandTrainingPapersNo 36, ILO,Geneva.

940 Economic and Political Weekly March 17, 2001