3 unpaid women worker as disguised exclusion: the indian perspective, wendy olsen, amishra dabey,...
TRANSCRIPT
March 16, 2016
Unpaid Women Worker as Disguised Exclusion: The Indian Perspective
By India TeamPrincipal Investigator: Wendy Olsen
India PI: Amaresh DubeyIndia CO-PI: Anup K Mishra
Field Coordinator: Santosh K Singh
International Conference onLessons from a Decade’s Research on Poverty:
Innovation, Engagement and ImpactPretoria, SA
This presentation
India part of the work: secondary data analysis and field survey
Activity status and definition of labour supply
Trends in female labour supply
Contextualizing the Indian perspective: socio-religious and
cultural context
Unpaid Women Worker
Bangladesh part of the work: time-use and Interview data
Concluding observations
• In spite of high economic growth during last decades there hasbeen low rate of female labour force participation (FLP) in India.
• This has been the recent issue that have to be looked uponthoroughly.
• More than in any other area it is in the recording of the work doneby women that serious in accuracies and measurement failureaccrue.
• As a result, there participation in the economy in undermined.
• The experience from other countries suggest that the combinedeffect of economic growth, rising educational label among womenand falling fertility rates leads to increasing participation ofwomen in labour force.
Introduction
• India’s rate of economic growth has averaged over 6per cent since 1991, female literacy rates haveincreased from 53.7 per cent in 2001 to 64.5 per cent in2011.
• In spite of this, female workforce participation rates fellfrom 33.1 per cent in 1977-78 to 26.1 per cent in 2009-10 for rural females and from 15.6 per cent in 1977-78 to13.8 per cent in 2009-2010 (using employment inprincipal and subsidiary status, see Himanshu (2011).
Introduction
• Census after Census, women's contribution has been rendered invisible byfailing to quantify their work inputs, especially in agriculture and theunorganized sector.
• Women are known to work longer hours than men and to participate in thework force to a far greater extent than is measured by the data gathered inthe census. But a lot of the work they do is unrecognized, leave alonerewarded with equal remuneration.
• Traditionally, men spend most of their time on tasks for which payment isreceived or tasks that are clearly within the realm of "economic activity" (Mehta, 2000) .
• However, while a large number of women work outside the home and areremunerated for the work they do, most women spend several hours doingwork for which no payment is received.
• This seems as a disguised exclusion of rural household women from themainstream of economy. The effort of the present paper is to only investigate
Introduction
• The main aim of this paper is to investigate women’s unpaidhousehold work in the rural India and attempts to assess aneconomic value for it.
• The specific objectives of this paper are to obtain primarydata of socio-economic status of the rural household, analyzethe average daily time spent on unpaid work and to accessand assign an approximate economic value to the unpaidwork.
• The research carried time use survey in three states of NorthIndia i.e Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand of rural areas.The sample consisted of around 500 rural men and women ineach category.
Objective and Methodology of the Study
Socio-religious and cultural context: India
Indian population structure
Hindu Verna system--- hierarchical social structure along caste
lines, influenced occupational outcomes
Religious influences: indigenous and outside
Socio-religious categories
Does it have any influence on labour supply??
Population Structure: Social Group and Religion
Social Group Population Share
ST 8.7
SC 18.8
OBC 44.0
OTH 28.4
All 100.0
Religion Population Share
Hindu 81.4
Muslims 13.8
Christians 2.1
ORM 2.7
All 100.0
Population structure: Social group x Religion
R/S ST SC OBC OTH All
Hindu 86.6 93.9 81.9 70.7 81.4
Muslims 1.8 0.2 16.0 23.3 13.8
Christians 8.7 0.2 1.4 2.3 2.1
ORM 2.9 5.7 0.8 3.8 2.7
All 100 100 100 100 100
R/S ST SC OBC OTH All
Hindu 9.2 21.8 44.3 24.7 100
Muslims 1.1 0.3 50.8 47.8 100
Christians 36.6 2.0 29.9 31.5 100
ORM 9.1 39.0 12.7 39.3 100
All 8.7 18.8 44.0 28.4 100
Labour supply: definitionsUS= Usual status, SS=Subsidiary status
Lfp1_usual=1 if US=31, 0 otherwise
Lfp2_usual=1 if US=31+41+51, 0 otherwise
Lfp3_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81, 0 otherwise
Lfp4_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81+11+12, 0 otherwise
Lfp5_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81+11+12+21, 0 otherwiseLfp6_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81+11+12+21+93, 0 otherwise
Lfp1_subs=1 if US or SS =31, 0 otherwise
Lfp2_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51, 0 otherwise
Lfp3_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81, 0 otherwise
Lfp4_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81+11+12, 0 otherwise
Lfp5_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81+11+12+21, 0 otherwise
Lfp6_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81+11+12+21+93, 0 otherwise
LFP and Education: More drop in LFP
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1983 1994 2005 2012
Illiterate
Upto Primary
Middle
Sec or High. Sec
Grad. or above
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Illiterate UptoPrimary
Middle Sec orHigh.Sec
Grad. orabove
1983
1994
2005
2012
An unchanged U-curve by education, but strong dropoff for secondary
and degree holders
A large literature has examined recent trends in rural
female labour force participation (RLFPR) in India.
There seems to be no consensus, however, on what
explains the recent decline in RLFPR.
Background of the Study
• One view stresses the role of education, with women in rural areas are nowpursuing higher education and are therefore simply not available for the labour force.
• A second view highlights a possible “income effect”. Arguing that householdincomes could have risen in rural areas due to higher wage levels which have takenthe pressure off women to seek distress employment in times of economic hardship(World Bank 2010; Himanshu 2011; Rangarajan 2011, Neff et al. 2012, Dubey, Olsen& Sen 2016).
• A third view argues that the decline in women’s LFPR is due to an overall decline inor absence of short and long term employment opportunities in rural areas (WorldBank 2010; Chowdhury 2011; Mazumdar and Neetha 2011, Dubey, Olsen & Sen2016).
• A fourth view argues that the decline of rural female LFPR could be due to culturalfactors and social constraints which might come to the fore with rising incomes orlimited employment opportunities (see Das 2006; Olsen and Mehta 2006; Chowdhury2011). It could even be that women’s nonwork status is a growing source ofhousehold dignity or honour (Olsen and Mehta, 2007) but the evidence does not castlight directly on that (Dubey, Olsen & Sen 2016).
Decline of rural female LFPR
• A plethora of micro studies provide detailed estimates of measurement failure. A few of these are cited below:
• In the 1970s, Jain and Chand found that 20 out of 104 females reported as non-workers in a West Bengal
village in the Census, were actually winnowing, threshing, parboiling or working as domestic servants for eight
to ten hours a day.
• Gail Omvedt found 239 women workers in one area where the census counted 38 and 444 women workers in
another area where the Census listed 9.
• Ratna Sudarshan’s work shows that while the 1991 census gave the Female Work Force Participation Rate
for Punjab as 4.4 percent, NCAER, during a probe, got 28.8 percent.
• Swapna Mukhopadhyay’s survey of 5,981 women workers in six cities found that the Labour Force
Participation Rate of women was four times greater than that stated in the Census.
• The invisibility of women’s work is shockingly clear from the following example. Prem Chowdhry refers to an
inquiry into dairy development in Ambala, which reported no female to be a worker in animal husbandry. In
fact even a cursory familiarity with agriculture shows, women are very clearly allied with animal husbandry,
from bringing in fodder, cutting chaff, preparing food mix for cattle, giving water and feed, bathing and cleaning
cattle, cleaning cattle sheds, treating sick cattle, making dung cakes, storing them, making compost etc.
Evidence from Micro Studies(Mehta, 2000)
• The definitions of RLFPR they construct are: a) participation in only wage
employment (narrow definition); b) participation in wage employment and self-
employment, and women looking for work (medium definition) and c) participation in
paid work (wage work and self-employment) and unpaid work – that is, unpaid
helpers and women involved in extra-domestic duties (wide definition). They then
examine the patterns in RLFPR across these three definitions and its correlates over
the period 1983-2011.
• They use to define labour most widely to include informal sector work, unpaid family
helpers, farming work, and extra domestic work (defined below), using the label LFP3
for wide labour.
• In between, LFP2 is familiar to western labour specialists, because it includes self-
employment of the respondent. Ambiguities around the definition of self-employment
have made this category under-report women’s remunerated market-related work.
The Study of Dubey, Olsen and SenThe Categorisation of Labour Force Participation
• In between narrow and wide, we define LFP2 as a medium measure of workparticipation. LFP2 is not meant as the perfect or ideal measure. It is meant tocapture a halfway point between the two useful extremes of measurement. LFP2omits the extradomestic work which some would call subsistence labour.
• One reason is that extradomestic work was defined by NSS to arbitrarily includemany activities undertaken by women and children, but the NSS ignored thereproductive work done by men, such as collecting firewood, boiling sugar, buildinghouses or walls, cooking, or child care, because men were considered breadwinnersa priori.
• Only women without a principle occupation were invited to state which of tenextradomestic tasks they had engaged in. The recall period was a year. Thecoverage was patchy. Questions were answered yes/no, not in terms of days worked.
• In LFP2, the medium measure of work, we include farming work and all other self-employment, if declared as self-employment, but we omit unpaid family helpers.
The Study of Dubey, Olsen and SenThe Categorisation of Labour Force Participation
Table 1: Rural India, Female Labour Force Participation,
Competing Definitions
% of Women 19831993-
94
2004-
05
2011-
12
Column
Percentag
e of
Workers,
1983
Column
Percentage
of Workers,
2011/2012
Salaried Work and
Employees Only1.50% 1.4 2 2.2 0.7 1.3
That + Casual Labour
(Narrow Def’n, LFP1)23.5 24 22.2 17.5 11.5 10.6
That plus those Unemployed 24 24.5 23.3 18.2 11.7 11
That plus those Self-
Employed (Medium Def’n,
LFP2)35.4 32.7 31.5 24.7 17.2 15
That plus those who worked
as “helper in household
enterprise”52.1 51.3 52.7 37.5 25.4 22.7
That plus extra-domestic
duties (EDD) (Wide Def’n,
LFP3)68.8 71.2 70.7 64.8 33.5 39.3
Total 100 100
For Narrow, medium and wide definition of labour see, Dubey, Amaresh; Olsen,
Table 1 shows female labour participation in rural
India according to various definitions (defined by
Dubey, Olsen & Sen 2016).
It shows that, except as per wide def’n of LFP3 the
female labour force participation in every category
has been decline over time (since 1983).
Only as per wide def’n that plus extra-domestic
duties of women the female labour force participation
has increased since 1983 that is 33.5 per cent to
39.3 per cent in the year 2011/12. This is the
concern of our present paper.
In our present paper we tried to examine the
economic role of this wide def’n female worker which
could be valued according to labour market.
For this purpose we apply the time use data. This
data have been collected around the clock (of the
previous working day) for both male and female
respondents in the study area.
The Study of Dubey, Olsen and SenThe Categorisation of Labour Force Participation
Gender equality is elemental for sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction.
Equitable approach to jobs in rural areas enable rural women to become active
economic performer of growth as money earner; despite of doing unpaid household
work as well.
Gender inequalities especially in rural employment subsist far and wide, indifferent to
the level of economic development in the country despite of different precedents of
social, cultural, religious and economic dynamics.
Some of them – such as the burden of unpaid work at home, lack of education and
dealing authority, and limited right of property - undoubtedly compose large gender
disparity.
On economic arena, gender bias in India is perceptible especially in the form of rural
wages.
On Gender Inequality
The following data in this respect are self explanatory
Gender gaps in rural wages in India
Sector Type of employmentWomen’s wage as %
of Men’s
Agriculture Daily Casual wage 69
Agriculture Daily Regular wage 79
Non-Agriculture Daily Casual wage 65
Non-Agriculture Daily Regular wage 57
The study conducted in the 15 villages of the north ruralIndia in the year 2015 confirms the unequal unpaid workstatus between men and women.
We observed that women are for more involved inunpaid economic activities (domestic activities) thanmen.
Applying the time use method on the basis of time usesurvey we found that on an average, women spent 9-10hour (9.3 hours) daily on categorized unpaid economicactivity and on other side men spent only 5-6 hours (5.95hours) for the same.
The Present Study
Economic and Non-economic activity
Table 2: Time use per day in hour of male and female in study area of economic
and non-economic activity
Economic activity Male Female
Crop farming and vegetable gardening 1.25 0.73
Livestock care 0.93 0.67
Fetching of fruits, hunting, collecting 0.01 0.04
Mining and rock quarrying, rock breaking 0.06 0.00
Construction Activities 0.89 0.01
Manufacturing Activities (beedi, garment etc.) 0.09 0.02
Trade and Business 0.31 0.08
Services 0.75 0.05
Grinding, flour, husking, or making spices 0.10 0.25
Cleaning 0.13 0.72
Washing and ironing cloths and utensils 0.02 1.37
Repairing the house or repair household 0.06 0.01
Cooking and serving 0.11 3.42
Getting firewood 0.04 0.14
Carrying water, fetching water 0.02 0.19
Childcare 0.10 0.66
Teaching one’s own children or giving tution 0.18 0.08
Caring for the sick people 0.02 0.06
Training, private or government (DWCRA 0.02 0.01
Other activities 0.85 0.78
Total 5.95 9.30
Economic activity,
5.95Non economic activity, 18.10
Male
Economic activity,
9.30Non economic activity, 14.70
Female
Economic and Non-economic activity
Table 3 reflects that male
invest 18.10 hour daily in
non –economic activities
while female invest only
14.70 for the same.
Female seems less social in
terms of participating in
social events , chatting or
visiting neighbor than their
counterparts female.
The table shows that male
enjoy more leisure than
Table 3: Time use per day in hour of male and female in study area
of economic and non-economic activity
Non-Economic activity Male Female
Sleep and rest 9.80 9.40
Eating and drinking 1.60 1.02
Personal washing, toilet, etc 1.50 1.51
Shopping 0.30 0.02
Travel 1.70 0.44
Studying 0.00 0.02
Participating in social events: wedding 0.10 0.05
Socialising, chatting, visiting neighbour 2.20 1.65
Games and hobbies 0.40 0.11
Reading 0.10 0.00
Watching television, video, internet etc, 0.20 0.28
Prayer 0.10 0.20
Total 18.10 14.70
Economic and Non-economic activity(Caste wise)
The graph shows that there are also caste wise differences in economic and non-economic
activities (in context of time use).
5.306.13 5.90
6.98
9.21 9.33 9.25 9.65
0.002.004.006.008.00
10.0012.00
FC OBC SC ST FC OBC SC ST
MALE FEMALE
Economic activity18.70 17.86 18.10 17.02
14.79 14.67 14.75 14.35
0.005.00
10.0015.0020.00
FC OBC SC ST FC OBC SC ST
MALE FEMALE
Non economic activity
Economic and Non-economic activity(Religion wise)
Religion wise also there are gender inequality regarding economic and non economic activities (in context of time use).
6.06 5.94
9.57 9.35
0.00
2.004.00
6.008.00
10.00
12.00
Muslim Hindu Muslim Hindu
Male Female
Economic Activity17.94 18.06
15.74 14.67
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Muslim Hindu Muslim Hindu
Male Female
Non-aconomic activity
Quantifying the Economic Activity
Quantifying the economic activities ( table 5) weobserved that women could get upto Rs. 8000 permonth ( for 26 days ) for the economic activities forwhich they are unpaid . This is more than malecounterpart.
Table 5: Estimated per day average remuneration of male and female in
various unpaid economic activity in the study area (in Rs.)
Economic activity Male Female
Crop farming and vegetable gardening 41.67 24.33
Livestock care 31 22.33
Fetching of fruits, hunting, collecting 0.33 1.33
Mining and rock quarrying, rock breakin 2 0
Construction Activities 29.67 0.33
Manufacturing Activities (beedi, garmen 3 0.67
Trade and Business 10.33 2.67
Services 25 1.67
Grinding, flour, husking, or making spi 3.33 8.33
Cleaning 4.33 24
Washing and ironing cloths and utensils 0.67 45.67
Repairing the house or repair household 2 0.33
Cooking and serving 3.67 114
Getting firewood 1.33 4.67
Carrying water, fetching water 0.67 6.33
Childcare 3.33 22
Teaching one’s own children or giving t 6 2.67
Caring for the sick people 0.67 2
Training, private or government (DWCRA 0.67 0.33
Other activities 28.33 26
Total 198.33 310based on average wage of prevailing wage rates in study area
198.33
310
0
200
400
Male Female
Per Day
5156.58
8060
0
5000
10000
Male Female
Per Month
Other Side of The Coin
The origin of gender inequality in Indian society is rather much
prominent in its male dominated social system whose typical social
structure and practices are not only men dominate, but also subjugate
and make the most of women. In fact, women’s oppression is a
longstanding cultural observable fact of Indian society.
‘Women are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are
children, they must be under the custody of their husband when married
and under the custody of her son in old age or as widows. In no
circumstances she should be allowed to assert herself independently’.
Other Side of The Coin
Uniquely, even today this perception exists in Indian society in reality. At least
our primary data survey results revealed this. The societal configuration
accountable for the notion that men are intrinsically the means of survival and
women are the custodians, disseminated over years. Even in the 21st century,
the outlook that working women are unfit house wives and are not capable to
balance professional work and family life, is dominant. It has been often
deduced that the upholding of gender typecast manifest sizeable dynamic in
hindering women’s growth in the professional pitch.
Likewise, women who do choose to stray from the conventional path are often
faced with challenges of a varied nature within the workplace/educational
institute/political party etc. When a few are able to persevere and make it to top-
notch positions, these women are faced with the work-life balance dilemma,
reinforced by society and gender norms.
Bangladesh part of the work: time-use and Interview data
Comparison of the Time-use in 2 Categories
(MINUTES PER DAY)
India Bangladesh COMMENTS
Women Round 1 Crop work 40 min
Livestock work 40
minutes
Crop work 70
minutes
Livestock work 60
minutes
Women’s work in
this area is
substantial
Men Round 1 Crop work 60
minutes
Livestock work 40
minutes
Crop work 160
minutes
Livestock work 12
minutes
Women dominate
livestock work of
feeding, milking,
watering the
animals
Qualitative Data From
Bangladesh
45 semi-structured interviews
Example of a mother of 5 married children, who says her work is so diverse, unsure where to start in describing the daily work tasks. She lists many tasks.
When interviews start, a ‘Discipline’ by husband or father is mentioned, but often later they expand on the confident-woman as an important iconic figure. The reality is that husband/wife negotiate a lot.
Qualitative Data From
Bangladesh
Another example
The very poor wife of an agricultural casual workers, who married at age 12 and whose children are now grown, has 3 cows 2 goats, lives on a ‘CHAR’ (island in a river, no electricity nor road). She raises animals, ‘When my husband cannot make ends meet, I use this [chickens] to make ends meet..ducks…I have made a savings deposit of 600 taka [£6], I maintain that…If my children want anything, I give it them. [You are saving money?] Yes, otherwise my sons tell me I have nothing. My daughter in law will also say I have nothing.’
Layers of interpretation
1. breadwinner model of household is dominant.
2. The woman constructs her dignity.
3. They do this in diverse ways, here via both
cash savings and via holding animals as liquid
mobile assets.
4. the construction of joint dignity and female
honour is very important to poor women. WORK
predominates in the interview materials as a
MEANS to dignity.
Conclusion
More than in any other area, it is in the recording of the work
done by women that serious inaccuracies and measurement
failures occur.
As a result, their participation in the economy is undermined
and seems as disguised exclusion from the mainstream of the
economy.
Census after Census, women's contribution has been rendered
invisible by failing to quantify their work inputs, especially in
agriculture and the informal sector.
The present study suggests that the value of unpaid work
performed by the rural women may be quantified and valued.
Conclusion (continued…)
Rural women continue to be treated as if they contribute
nothing of value to society or the nation.
Though we experienced that, women’s lives have changed
rapidly over time. Social, economic and legislative
improvements and scientific advancements have allowed
women to gain greater control over their lives.
But mostly these experiences reflect only in the urban areas.
Unless these trends reach the bottom strata of the society
especially in the rural areas, attaining the motive of gender
equality and inclusive growth remains an impossible vision.
Hence we suggest that.....
Adequate recognition should be made of the unpaid works of the rural women to increase their self-esteem and to improve their image in the family and society at large.
Also access to and control over production and market resources such as access to training, credit, employment, technical skills, entrepreneurship etc, by women should be increased while recognising that the goal is not to burden women with two full time jobs.
We should also take all appropriate measures to ensure that care responsibilities are equally shared by men and women.
Thank you