Upload
dolan
View
35
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
MAPPING WOMEN, MAPPING GENDER IN THE WORLD OF WORK. Saraswati Raju Professor, Centre for the Study of Regional Development Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi 110067 Contact: [email protected]. Women Workers (15 – 59). N. High (>= 60). Moderately High (45 - 60). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
MAPPING WOMEN, MAPPING GENDER IN THE WORLD OF WORK
Saraswati Raju
Professor, Centre for the Study of Regional Development
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi 110067
Contact: [email protected]
Women Workers (15 – 59)
1993-1994 1999-2000 2004-2005
Note for all Maps in the Presentation: New states not included for easy comparison across timeMap Not to ScaleWorkers = Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS)Source: Computed from unit level data of NSS, various rounds .
High (>= 60)
Moderately High (45 - 60)
Moderately Low (30 - 45)
Low (<= 30)
Inadequate sample
All India: 44 per cent All India: 40 per cent All India: 43.4 per cent
Per cent
N
2007 - 2008
All India - 37.7 per cent
Women Workers (15 – 59)
Per Cent
Low (<=30)
Moderately Low (30 - 45)
Moderately High (45 - 60)
High (>=60)
2009 - 2010
All India – 33.6 per cent
Note for all Maps in the Presentation: Map Not to ScaleWorkers = Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS)Source: Computed from unit level data of NSS, various rounds .
N
N
Per cent
Inadequate Sample
Low (<= 20)
Moderate (20 - 40)
High (40 - 60)
Very High (>= 60)
Per cent
Inadequate Sample
Low (<= 10)
Moderate (10 - 20)
High (20 - 30)
Very High (>= 30)
All India: 44.0 per cent All India: 17.5 per cent
Rural Urban
Women Workers (15-59) in Subsidiary Work, 2007-2008
Women Workers (15-59) in Subsidiary Work, 2009-2010
Rural
Per Cent
Inadequate sample
Low (<=20)
Moderate (20-40)
High (40-60)
Very High (>=60)
Urban
Per Cent
Inadequate sample
low (<=10)
Moderate (10-20)
High (20-30)
Very High (>=30)
All India: 41.2 per cent All India: 16.5 per cent
Illiterate and Below Primary Educated Workers (15 – 59): 2004-2005
Rural Urban
All India Women: 73.8 per cent
All India Male: 45 per cent
All India Women: 43.6 per cent
All India Male: 20.9 per cent
High (>= 85)Moderate (65 - 85)
Inadequate sampleLow (<= 65)
High (55 – 80)Moderate (30 - 55)
Inadequate sampleLow (<= 30)
Per cent Per cent
N
Illiterate and Below Primary Educated Workers (15 – 59): 2007-2008
Rural
Per cent
Inadequate Sample
Low (<=65)
Moderate (65 - 85)
High (>=85)
All India - 70.1 per cent
Urban
Per cent
Inadequate Sample
Low (<=30)
Moderate (30 - 55)
High (>=55)
All India - 39.9 per cent
N
Rural
Per Cent
High (>=85)
Moderate (65-85)
Low (<=65)
Inadequate sample
Illiterate and Below Primary Educated Workers (15 – 59): 2009-2010
Urban
Per Cent
High (55-80)
Moderate (30-55)
Low (12-30)
Inadequate sample
mN
All India – 65.9 per cent All India – 35.6 per cent
Women Workers across Employment Status (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2004-2005
Casual Labour
Regular Salaried
Self-employed
High (55 – 75)Moderate (40 - 55)
Inadequate sampleLow (<= 40)
All India: 46.5 per cent
High (44 – 84)Moderate (30 - 44)
Inadequate sampleLow (<= 30)
All India: 36.8 per cent
High (20 – 38)Moderate (14 - 20)
Inadequate sampleLow (<= 14)
All India: 16.7 per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
N
Women Workers across Employment Status (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2007-2008
Self-employed
Per cent
Inadequate Sample
Low (<=40)
Moderate (40 - 55)
High (>=55)
All India - 41.4 per cent
Regular Salaried
Per cent
Inadequate Sample
Low (<=30)
Moderate (30 - 44)
High (>=44)
All India - 39.2 per cent
Casual Labour
Per cent
Inadequate Sample
Low (<=14)
Modearte (14 - 20)
High (>=20)
All India - 19.4 per cent
N
Women Workers across Employment Status (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2009-2010
All India:19.3 Per cent
a) Self-Employed
Per cent
Inadequate sampleLow (<= 40)
Moderate (40 - 55)
High (>= 55)
All India - 40.1 per cent
b) Regular Salaried
Per cent
Inadequate sampleLow (20 - 30)Moderate (30 - 44)High (44 - 90)
All India - 40.6 per cent
c) Casual Labour
Per Cent
Inadequate sample
Low (<=14)
Moderate (14-20)
High (20.1-38)
Self-employed Workers as Home-based (15-59) in Urban India: 2009-2010
Per
cent
age
of W
orke
rs
Self-Employed Workers as Unpaid Family Labour (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2004-2005
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Jhar
khan
d
Miz
oram
Utta
rPra
desh
Mad
hyaP
rade
sh
Kar
nata
ka
Chh
atis
garh
Indi
a
Raj
asth
an
Ass
am
Utta
ranc
hal
Man
ipur
Ker
ala
Per
cent
age
of W
orke
rs
Female Male
Self-Employed Workers as Unpaid Family Labour (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2009-2010
Per
cent
age
of W
orke
rs
Self-Employed Workers who are Home-based, Rural (15-59), 2009-2010
Home-based workers
Men
Women
All India Men: 38.9 per cent
All India Women: 82.4 per centMap not to scale
Self-employed Workers who are Home-based, Rural (15-59), 2009-2010
Per centHigh (>80)Moderate (70-80)Low (<70)
Inadequate sample
All India - Men - 38.9 per cent
All India Women - 82.4 per cent
Educational Level of Self-Employed Home-based Women Workers, Rural (15-59), 2009-2010
Rural
All inadequate samples are excluded
Educational Level
Illiterate to below primary
School
Above school
Women not in the Formal Labour Market due to Socio-religious Reasons (15-59)
Per
cent
age
of W
omen
A FEW POINTERS
It has been argued that the decrease in 2009-10 superficial as the increase in 2004-05 was distress driven.
Long-term trend shows secular decline.
Somewhat substantiated claim- the added workforce (2004-2005) essentially that of illiterate or lowly literate women.
Decrease in child labour and more girls in educational institutes.
However, 24-35 years of age – absolute decline.
However, regionally differentiated pattern in terms of additional workers – mainly in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.
The outcomes appear similar, but the processes are very different, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh versus Haryana and Punjab.
Overall, the regionally differentiated spaces - the north Indian Plain vis-a-via the rest - show up consistently in terms of formally acknowledged lower work participation rates (principal status) of women.
The subsidiary work pattern is just the reverse - women as supplementary earners. However, when the self-employed women – majority of whom are home-based - are considered, the regional differentiation is stark.
This pattern cuts across comparable poverty levels, cropping pattern & developmental levels.
CONT. . .
It also corresponds with regionally embedded social and religious constraints.
The embeddedness of regional ethos in terms of reticence or liberal towards women`s visibility in public domain.
Inferred from rural-urban correspondence (r-u, 2004-5 = r 08; 2009-10- = r 0.8; r-r = 0.7, u-u = 06, all values statistically significant), suggesting spatially co-varying pattern.
And yet, it gets further complicated.
CONT. . . When it comes to home-based work and unpaid
family labour, the regional variations, with fewer exceptions, are considerably obliterated.
At one level then, regions emerge as significant where at another level, they homogenize.
Thus, as long as women remain within the household sphere, their status as workers gets socially approved whereas the recognition of work in public domain is regionally differentiated.
I argue that this process is contingent upon the almost omnipresent social construct of women`s primary location within the household domain.
CONCLUDING. . . Even the salaried workers are either in social
work or teaching. The category which has shown the highest growth both during 2004-05 and 2009-10 is in domestic work.
Added to this is the observation that now the formal sector contracts out work which is primarily being carried out informally.
The neo-liberal regime that saw overwhelming concentration of women in home-bound work serves the capital well in terms of cheap and flexible labour.
It seems that capital is well-placed to not only use the existing gendered constructs, but also reinforce them to its benefits through a variety of market mechanisms.
The approach paper to the 12th Five Year Plan has no chapter on employment!
CONCLUDING. . .
In Sum, The gendered vulnerabilities and multi-
layered and have to be understood through regionally contextualized analyses because the labour market dynamics play out differently in different environs.