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: saraswati_raju@hotmail.com

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.