The paper is organised as follows.

I Population, WPRs and Workforce Growth

Table 2: Survey and Census-based Age-Distribution ofAll-India Population by Gender and Rural-Urban Location:1981 – 2004-05

Per 1000 Distribution of Population by Rural Age-Groups

Survey-based Census-based (Smoothed) Age-1983 1993-1999-2004-1981 1991 2001 2005 Group 94 2000 05

Panel A: Rural Males 0 – 9 284 261 255 238 278 268 255 237 10 – 14 136 120 128 127 127 121 122 118 15 – 29 244 258 250 253 250 259 261 272 30 – 59 270 294 296 311 280 289 295 302 60+ 66687171 65 63 6771 All Ages 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Panel B: Rural Females 0 – 9 275 254 248 230 280 269 252 231 10 – 14 121 107 117 113 122 115 116 115 15 – 29 255 266 258 258 256 265 261 264 30 – 59 280 304 304 324 284 289 298 311 60 + 68 69 73 75 58 63 73 79 All Ages 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Panel C: Urban Males 0 – 9 241 218 202 183 236 225 196 177 10 – 14 125 115 116 104 118 113 110 100 15 – 29 294 292 291 300 298 292 296 303 30 – 59 287 321 331 349 300 317 336 353 60 + 52 55 59 64 48 53 62 67 All Ages 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Panel D: Urban Females 0 – 9 249 216 201 179 256 236 199 177 10 – 14 122 114 114 108 122 115 109 98 15 – 29 291 291 287 283 295 297 293 303 30 – 59 275 314 327 354 275 295 328 347 60 + 63 65 71 76 52 57 71 75 All Ages 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Notes: Starting with the more detailed (by 5 year age-group) age-distributions, the census age-distribution for 1981, 1991 and 2001 has been smoothed using the smoothing procedure spelt out in the Report of Technical Group on Population Projections (pp 3-4). For 2005, the age-distribution has been computed by the author by interpolation of age-sex-locationspecific populations for January 1, 2005 from population projections by age-sex and location for April 1, 2002 and April 1, 2007 kindly made available by Mari Bhat.

Table 1: All-India Population by Gender and Rural-Urban Location 1983 – 2004-05

(All-India Population)

(’000s)

Notes: Segment-wise population totals for 1983, 1993-94 and 1999-2000 are based on inter-censal interpolations of total population, share of urban area in total population and the share of females in rural and urban area based on the 1981, 1991 and 2001 Censuses. The estimates for 2004-05 are based on an interpolation of the total and urban population as on October 1, 2004 and March 1, 2005 as per Population Projections for India and States, 2001-2026 [ORG&CCI, 2006]. The segment-wise sex-composition as per the 2001 Population Census is used to derive the estimates for 2004-05.

We begin this discussion of the changes in the structure of workforce by focusing on the activity-status distribution of the workforce separately for rural and urban India and for males and females (Table 5).

In rural India, we have a significant reversal of the past trends in the activity-status distribution of the workforce. The share of the self-employed, which had declined from 610 (per 1000) in 1983 to 580 in 1993-94 and further to 554 (per 1000) in 19992000, rose sharply to 601 in 2004-05. The rise in the share of casual labourers from 314 in 1983 to 355 per 1000 in 1993-94 and further to 377 in 1999-2000 gives way, in parallel, to an equally sharp fall to 328 per 1000 in 2004-05. As for the regular wage salary workers (RWS workers for short), after a decline in its share between 1983 and 1993-94 (from 76 per 1000 to 65 per 1000), the share of RWS workers registers a small rise

– both between 1993 and 1999-2000 (to 69 per 1000) and between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 (to 71 per 1000).

In urban India, after moving narrowly (between 417 and 423 per 1000) over the period 1983 to 1999-2000, the share of the self-employed records a sharp rise (from 420 to 454 per 1000) with an offsetting decline in the share of the casual labourers. The share of the RWS workers, which had fallen between 1983 and 1993-94 (from 403 to 394 per 1000), after rising by 5 points (per 1000) by 1999-2000, slips down fractionally (to 396 per 1000) to be just above its share in 1993-94.

By gender, the rise in the share of the self-employed (and the offsetting fall in the share of the casual labourers) between 2000 and 2005 is sharper for females than for males. Over the same period, the share of RWS workers in female workforce also records a significant rise (from 77 to 90 per 1000) while, for male workers, the rise in the share of RWS workers, while present, is more subdued.

Let us focus briefly on the growth of regular wage-salary workers, which, we have argued elsewhere [Sundaram 2007] is a good indicator (better than the Directorate General of Employment and Training estimates) for tracking the growth of “jobs” in the country (Table 6).

complete variance with the fact of much faster and rising growth of jobs in terms of the number of RWS workers in the country since 1993-94.

In terms of absolute numbers, the largest increase over this period has been that of the self-employed: by over 49 million with 75 per cent of this increase taking place in rural India. The number of casual labourers, on the other hand, declined by a little over 2.7 million.

We turn now to a discussion of the changes in the industrial distribution of the workforce (Table 7). At the outset, it needs to be emphasised that the classification adopted in the 55th and the 61st round surveys is based on NIC 1998. So that while the composition of broad industry groups are by and large comparable with the results for 1993-94, there are some differences. Notably, repair services is now a part of the Trade, Hotels and Restaurants and not of Social, Community and Personal Services as earlier. So that, for rural and urban areas taken together, the share of the Trade, Hotels and Restaurants for 1993-94 would need to be raised by about 9 points per 1000 to be comparable with the shares presented here for 1999-2000 and 2004-05 [Sundaram 2001].

As one would expect, we have a continuation of the long-term trend of a decline in the share of “Agriculture and Allied Activities” and, at the present pace of decline, another decade might see the share of agriculture in employment going below the 50 per cent mark. Despite this sizeable decline in its share, the absolute number of workers in this sector has increased by nearly 18 million, i e, over 30 per cent of the incremental workforce (Table 10).

In all the four population segments the first quinquennium of this century has witnessed a rise in the share of manufacturing in workforce and this increase has been particularly large (over 4 percentage points) for urban females. Combined with a 2.7 per cent per annum growth in the total workforce, this rise in share of manufacturing in all segments has resulted in a spectacular 4.8 per cent per annum growth in total manufacturing sector employment. This sector accounted for a little over 20 per cent of the incremental workforce during this period.

The secondary sector, covering Manufacturing, Electricity, Gas and Water Supply and Construction, raises its share from

15.8 per cent in 1999-2000 to 18.2 per cent in 2004-05. This sector added a little over 20 million to its workforce and accounted for 35 per cent of the incremental workforce over this period.

In the tertiary or the services sector, we have a reduction, albeit small, in the share of the Social, Community and Personal services. The other services sectors – Trade, Hotels and Restaurants, Transport, Storage and Communication and Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services – each added between 4 and 6 points (per 1000) to its share. Overall, the share of services went up only slightly from 23.7 to 24.8 per cent.

Focusing on female workforce, we have a more moderate decline in the share of agriculture and allied activities (by 28 points per 1000 as against the 45 points decline for males). Almost all of this decline in the share of agriculture is offset by the rise of the share of manufacturing (17 points) and social, community and personal services (8 points).

To complete our discussion of the changes in the structure of workforce, the estimates of the occupational distribution of the work force are presented at the one-digit occupation, division level (Table 8) as well as for identified two-digit occupation groups in Table 9.

Consistent with the declining share of agriculture, the share of Division 6 (Farmers, Fishermen, Hunters, Loggers and related workers) records a 32 point decline between 2000 and 2005.

Table 7: Industrial Distribution of Usual (Principal plus Subsidiary) Status Workforce by Gender and Rural-Urban Location: All-India, 1999-2000 – 2004-05

1999-2000 2004-05 Industry-Group Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Male Female Person Male Female Person

Panel A: Rural Areas Agriculture and allied activity 714 853 762 665 832 725 Mining and

quarrying 4 34 635 Manufacturing 73 76 74 79 84 81 Electricity, gas

and water 2 01 201 Construction 45 11 33 68 15 49 Trade, hotels and

restaurants 68 20 52 83 25 62 Transport, storage

and communication 32 1 21 38 2 25 Finance, insurance,

real estate and

business services 5 0 3 7 1 5 Social, community

and personal services 57 36 50 52 38 47 All 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

1999-2000 2004-05 Industry-Group Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Male Female Person Male Female Person

Panel B: Urban Areas Agriculture and

allied activity 65 176 86 61 181 87 Mining and quarrying 9 4 8 9 2 8 Manufacturing 224 240 227 235 282 245 Electricity, gas

and water 8 27 827 Construction 87 48 80 92 38 80 Trade, hotels and

restaurants 294 169 270 280 122 246 Transport, storage

and communication 104 18 87 107 14 87 Finance, insurance,

real estate and

business services 45 25 41 59 32 53 Social, community

and personal services 165 317 194 149 327 187 All 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

1999-2000 2004-05 Industry-Group Male Female Person Male Female Person

Panel C: All Areas Agriculture and

allied activity 534 752 601 489 724 564 Mining and quarrying 5 3 4 7 3 6 Manufacturing 115 100 110 124 117 122 Electricity, gas

and water 4 03 403 Construction 57 17 45 75 18 57 Trade, hotels and

restaurants 116 42 93 127 41 99 Transport, storage

and communication 52 4 37 58 4 41 Finance, insurance,

real estate and

business services 16 4 12 22 6 17 Social, community

and personal services 102 78 95 94 86 91 All 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

However, reflecting the rise in the share of the self-employed and the decline in the share of casual labourers, at the two-digit level, we have a small rise in share of “Cultivators” and a sharp, 49 points per 1000, decline in the share of agricultural labourers. The fact that decline in the share of Occupational Division 6 (32 points) is smaller than the decline in occupational groups 61 (cultivators) and 63 (agricultural labourers) taken together, (43 points) implies that there has been a measure of occupational diversification within Division 6.

At the upper end of the skill-spectrum, the share of both Divisions 0-1, and 2 (Professional, Technical and related workers and Administration and Managerial Workers) shows a rise – smaller for Division 1 relative to Division 2 – in all the segments distinguished. Within the broader Division 0-1, for females, there has been a marginal reduction in the share of healthcare sector and a slight rise in the share of Teachers.

Continuing the trend noted over a longer period, since 1961 [Sundaram 2001], the share of clerical workers in the urban workforce declines further (from 79 per 1000 to 68 per 1000) in the first five years of the 21st century. However, reversing earlier trends, the share of sales workers shows a rise in all the segments, despite a fall in the share of “Merchants and Shopkeepers” in urban India (Table 9).

Table 8: Occupational Distribution of Usual (Principal plus Subsidiary) Status Workforce by Gender and Rural-Urban Location: All-India, 1999-2000 to 2004-05

Per 1000 Distribution of Workforce

Table 10 presents our estimates of number of workers by broad Industry groups, built up by combining segment-specific estimates of workforce (Table 4) and (segment specific) industry-group shares (Table 7), for all-India for 1999-2000 and 2004-05. Combining these estimates with the NAS – estimates of GDP (at constant 1999-2000 prices) for the two years, we derive constant price estimates of GVA per worker for the two years. Below the estimates for 2004-05, we also present the compound rates of growth of the relevant variables over the period 2000-2005. For easy comparison, column 9 presents comparable rates of growth for GVA per worker over the period 1993-94 to 1999-2000.

Having discussed the rates of growth in sectoral workforce in the previous section, let us focus on the trends in labour productivity across sectors as measured by GVA per worker, and their rates of growth between 2000 and 2005.

In terms of levels, Agriculture and Allied Activities, with over 56 per cent of the workforce, not only continues to have the lowest GVA per worker but also, its position vis-a-vis the productivity of the total workforce has worsened from being 42 per cent of overall GVA per worker in 1999-2000 to just 37 per cent in 2004-05.

Construction, with about 6 per cent of the workforce, has the second lowest GVA per worker (still three times that in the agriculture sector). Over the period 2000-2005, labour productivity grew at less than one-fourth of one per cent per annum adding less than Rs 150 per year.

In the manufacturing sector, where employment grew at an impressive 4.75 per cent per annum between 2000 and 2005, the growth in GDP averaged 6.44 per cent per annum. The high employment elasticity of manufacturing sector implicit in these two numbers also implied that labour productivity in this sector grew at less than 1.6 per cent per annum – roughly half the rate of growth of labour productivity of the total workforce. So that, the excess of labour productivity in manufacturing relative to that in the economy as a whole falls from 33 to 23 per cent over this period.

Two sectors, Trade, Hotels and Restaurants, and Transport, Storage and Communication (together employing 14 per cent of the total workforce) – especially the latter – record a strong growth in labour productivity over the period 2000-2005.

Except for the two sectors noted above, and the Construction sector, where a small negative growth between 1994 and 2000 turns into a small positive growth between 2000 and 2005, in each and every other sector and for the economy as a whole, labour productivity growth over the period 2000-2005 has been lower, and significantly so, than the growth in labour productivity realised between 1993-94 and 1999-2000.

While the levels of and trends in labour productivity directly impinge on the returns to labour of the self-employed across sectors, in a market economy, they also shape the level of and the trends in real wage rates of casual labourers.

Given the significant slowdown in the rate of growth of labour productivity between 2000 and 2005 relative to that realised between 1994 and 2000, the significant slowdown in the rate of growth of real wage rates for rural male and rural female casual labourers (Table 11) should not surprise anyone. What is striking however, is the fact that, both for males and females, the real wage rates for adult casual labourers in urban areas have actually declined. Significantly, over this period there has been very little

Notes: (1) Figures for GVA (and GVA per worker) in row 8 exclude contribution to GDP from dwellings by way of actual and imputed rentals.

Sources: (1) Estimates of number of workers computed by the author, separately by gender and rural-urban location for each broad industry-group combining level estimate of total workforce (Table 4) and industry-group shares in Table 6.

(2) Estimates of gross domestic product as 1999-2000 prices from CSO, National Accounts Statistics 2006, July 2006.

increase in the number of casual labourers (only 70,000 over a five-year period) in urban India.

Two recent papers by S Mahendra Dev and Ravi, and Himanshu (both in EPW, February 10, 2007), have analysed recent trends in poverty and inequality and have come to broadly similar conclusions: that the pace of poverty reduction accelerated (sharply according to Himanshu) between 2000 and 2005 relative to the reduction between 1994 and 2000.

In the absence of a size-distribution of persons by expenditure classes on the mixed reference period in the only published report (Report No 508) based on the 61st round Consumer Expenditure Survey, Himanshu’s results are based on estimates of household consumer expenditure canvassed on a worksheet in the NSS 55th and 61st employment-unemployment surveys both using a mixed reference period. Mahendra Dev and Ravi too have to approximate the size-distribution on mixed reference period with only the size-distribution of persons on uniform reference period and mean per capita expenditure on MRP, which, in many cases, fall outside the defined expenditure class intervals, as available raw materials.

However, at least at the all-India level, there is a better alternative available in Tables 6R and 6U of Report 508. They present the per 1000 break-up of households by adjusted MPCE Class (based on 365-days’ data for clothes, footwear, education, medical (institutional) and durable goods). This can be used directly to estimate, in the first instance, the proportion of households below the poverty line in 2004-05 with parallel estimates from the NSS 55th round Consumer Expenditure Survey – with or without adjustments for so-called “contamination”. And, corresponding to this proportion of households below the poverty line on the mixed reference period drawn from the 61st round Consumer Expenditure Survey, we can derive the proportion of persons below the poverty line or the headcount ratio (HCR) from the 61st round Employment-Unemployment Survey.5

However, this is possible only at the all-India level. So that, we cannot derive the all-India HCR as a weighted average of state/segment specific HCRs. However, given an all-India poverty line, this procedure can be implemented by using the all-India poverty line on the all-India size-distribution – in this case, of households – from the 61st Consumer Expenditure Survey in the first instance, and, thence, derive estimates of headcount ratios (of persons below poverty line) from the 61st round Employment-Unemployment Survey.

Before presenting our results, which are based on a slightly different set of poverty lines for all-India, let us first put together the results based on the Planning Commission poverty lines for 1999-2000 and 2004-05 (Table 12).

As can be readily seen, the order of decline, between 2000 and 2005, in the proportion of poor households (4.5 percentage points in rural India and 1.5 percentage points in urban India) and that in HCR for persons (respectively, 4.3 and 1.5 percentage points in rural and urban India) are roughly the same.

In contrast, Mahendra Dev reports a decline in HCR between 2000 and 2005 of the order of 5.6 percentage points for rural India and 3.7 points for urban India, while Himanshu reports a whopping 9.1 percentage point reduction for rural India and a 3.9 percentage point reduction for urban India.

households and persons for 1993-94 with Planning Commission poverty lines for all-India.

In terms of households below the poverty line in rural India, the average annual decline between 1994 and 2000 was 0.75 percentage points per year, i e, at a compound rate of a little over 3 per cent per annum while the rate of decline between 2000 and 2005 was 0.9 percentage points per year or, on a smaller base, at a little over 4.2 per cent per annum.

In urban India, the rate of reduction in HCR of households was 0.77 points per annum at a compound rate of 3.7 per cent per annum between 1994 and 2000, while between 2000 and 2005, the urban HCR for households declined by just 0.3 points per year or 1.7 per cent per annum.

In terms of persons, with the Planning Commission poverty lines, in rural India, HCR declined by 4.8 percentage points or

0.8 points per year or at 2.7 per cent per annum between 1994 and 2000 and by 0.9 points per year or at 3.4 per cent per annum between 2000 and 2005 indicating a small increase in the pace of poverty decline in the first five years of the 21st century. In urban India, however, in terms of HCR for persons also we have a clear slowdown – from 0.78 points per year between 1994 and 2004 to just 0.3 points per year between 2000 and 2005.

Our estimates of poverty, based on alternative poverty lines (Panel B, Table 12) however indicate that this result of a slightly faster pace of poverty reduction between 2000 and 2005 is reversed with a small reduction in the pace of poverty reduction from 2.8 per cent per annum to 2.5 per cent per annum. Our estimates with alternative poverty lines also reinforce the result of a slower reduction in urban poverty between 2000 and 2005 relative to that between 1994 and 2000.

The above results of a marginal rise (or a marginal reduction depending upon the choice of poverty lines) in the pace of poverty reduction in rural India and a clear slowdown in the pace of poverty reduction in urban India between 2000 and 2005 are consistent with the slowdown in the rate of growth of labour productivity across most sectors and in real wages of casual labourers in rural India and the absolute decline in real wages of casual labourers in urban India that we discussed in the previous section.

In this the final section of the paper, we track the changes in the number of workers in “below poverty line” or BPL households or the working poor and its complement, those located in households above the poverty line or APL households. As we have argued elsewhere [Sundaram 2007], changes in the number of workers in APL households are a good indicator of the quality of employment – especially of the self-employed.

Consider first our estimates of the working poor and the underlying headcount ratios for workers differentiated by gender, activity-status and rural-urban location (Table 13).

In the country as a whole and taking all activity-status and gender categories together, we find a small increase (1.3 million) in the number of working poor who totalled a little under 105 million at the beginning of 2005. This rise in the number of the working poor occurs despite a fall in the headcount ratio for the total workforce: from 25.7 per cent to 22.8 per cent between 2000 and 2005.

The rise in the total number of working poor is primarily the net result of two offsetting movements: an increase of a little under 6.2 million in the number of self-employed poor more than compensating a decline in the number of casual labourers by a little under 5.5 million. While the rise in the number of selfemployed poor occurs despite a 1.6 percentage points decline in HCR, the reduction in the number of casual labourers in BPL households reflects the combined effect of an absolute reduction in the number of casual labourers – from 132.4 million in 2000 to 129.7 million in 2005 – and a reduction in the HCR for such workers from 39.3 per cent to 35.9 per cent over the same period.

Number of UPSS Workers in BPL Households

Notes: Figures within brackets refer the proportion of workers in that population segment and activity-status, who are located in below poverty line (BPL) households. HCRs are based on the alternative poverty line indicated in Table 11.

Average Annual Increments to Workers in All-Households

By gender, women workers experience a sharper reduction in their HCR relative to their male counterpart. Consequent upon an over 5 percentage point reduction in HCR, there is a sharp reduction in the number of female casual labourers in BPL households – by 3 million – in the first quinquennium of this century. Curiously, despite a marginal reduction in their HCR, there is a rise in the number of female RWS workers in poor households. The biggest contributors to the rise in the number of female workers in BPL households are, however, the selfemployed. The number of poor female self-employed workers increased by over 3 million (despite a reduction in HCR for female self-employed workers) between 2000 and 2005.

In urban India, while the RWS workers record a small reduction in HCR (but a very marginal rise in the number of such workers in BPL households) both the self-employed and the casual labourers

– especially the latter – record a rise in HCR. At 2.6 percentage points, the rise in HCR for casual labourers in urban India is quite sizeable but is also entirely consistent with the absolute decline in real wages of such workers discussed earlier. Overall, the number of working poor in urban India rose by a little over 4 million between 2000 and 2005.

In rural India, there is a decline in HCR for all the three activitystatus categories. Aided by a 2.8 million reduction in the total number of casual labourers in rural India and a decline in their HCR by 4.4 percentage points, the number of rural casual labourers in BPL households declined by close to 6 million between 2000 and 2005. This is only partially offset by the rise in the number of self-employed poor in rural India (by a little over 3 million). So that, despite a significant growth in the total rural workforce, we have a 2.8 million reduction in the number of working poor in rural India.

INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH Film City Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065

Young Scholars’ Programme

Young scholars in the field of Social Sciences, Humanities, Mathematics and Statistics who are interested in Human Development are invited to participate in a Young Scholars’ Programme for capacity development. This programme is the second batch of the successful and well-received YSP first held in June 2007 and is planned for the end of September-first week of October period. The Programme is supported by UNDP/ Planning Commission and hopes to build research capacity on various aspects of Human Development. Those who have finished their master’s degree this year or the preceding three years may apply. Recently appointed college lecturers are also encouraged to apply. The total intake will be 35-40 students from all over India.

The Programme will consist of lectures, discussion groups and individual research, for which library and other facilities will be provided by IGIDR. All selected participants will be expected to give a short presentation or write a 2000 word note on a human development topic of their interest.

Those selected will be given full boarding and lodging on a twin-sharing basis at IGIDR, and a modest stipend for out-of-pocket expenses. Travel expenses will be reimbursed for an amount up to Three-tier AC travel (including Tatkal charges where necessary). Accommodation may also be available for those wishing to stay on preceding or succeeding days in case of travel exigencies.

Selection will be on the basis of CV and a half page note on motivation. These should be sent by email to: ysp@igidr.ac.in on or before 19th August 2007. Only those selected will be informed along with the firm dates.

between 1994 and 2000 and by close to two-thirds relative to the average annual increments in such workers between 1983 and 1994.

In urban India, the average annual increments to workers in APL households has increased over the successive periods, with the 2000-2005 period recording a 32 per cent jump relative to that realised between 1994 and 2000. Relative to the 1980s, the annual average increments to “good quality” employment has more than doubled in the first five years of this century. This has been made possible by a near – doubling of the annual average increments to the number of self-employed located in APL households in the period 2000-2005 relative to the 1994-2000 period. Not surprisingly, given the rise in HCR among urban casual labourers between 2000 and 2005 noted earlier, there is an absolute decline in the number of urban casual labourers located in APL households.

In the country as a whole, a little over 11.1 million workers were added every year to the above poverty line households between 2000 and 2005 which very nearly equals the average annual increments to the total workforce over this period (with BPL workers growing by 0.26 million per annum). Mirroring the situation in rural India, there has been a big jump (over 30 per cent) in the average annual increments to the self-employed workers in APL households.

It is also significant that the number of RWS workers in APL households has increased by a little over 2 million per annum between 2000 and 2005 – more than double the average annual growth in such workers in the 1980s. Even between 1994 and 2000, the average annual increments to RWS workers in APL households was over 50 per cent higher than that between 1983 and 1994. This, taken with the larger increments to the total number of RWS workers should dispel any lingering notion of the period since 1993-94 being a period of “jobless growth”.

As a group, casual labourers, have not done as well – especially in the urban areas – as the other two activity-status categories. The sharp slowdown in the average annual increments to casual labourers in APL households between 2000 and 2005, relative to both the 1994-2000 and the 1983-1994 periods, well reflects the slowdown in the growth of real wages of adult casual labourers in rural India and the absolute decline in real wages of these workers in urban India between 2000 and 2005.

To summarise:

The first quinquennium of the 21st century saw a sharp acceleration in workforce growth – especially of females – with a little over 57 million added to the total workforce. Of this incremental workforce 49 million were self-employed and 10.7 million were RWS – workers – dispelling any notion of “jobless growth”. The number of casual labourers, however declined by a little over

2.7 million.

In terms of industrial distribution, a spectacular 4.8 per cent per annum growth in manufacturing employment and a continued decline in the share of agriculture – to a little over 56 per cent

– is noteworthy. Despite some occupational diversification, India still remains a land of farmers, fishermen, hunters and loggers, with marginal gains in the share of production process workers and of professional and technical workers, and administrators, executive and managerial workers.

The obverse side of the acceleration in workforce growth is the slowdown in the rate of growth of labour productivity across most sectors and in the economy as a whole. Not surprisingly, we also have a slowdown in the rate of growth of real wages of casual labourers in rural India and an actual decline in real wages in urban India.

Our analysis of poverty shows that, on a comparable basis, reduction in poverty is substantially smaller than indicated by Himanshu and Mahendra Dev and Ravi. Relative to the pace of poverty reduction between 1994 and 2000, we have, at best, a marginal acceleration (or, deceleration, depending on the choice of the poverty lines) in rural India, and a clear slowdown in urban India in the pace of poverty reduction between 2000 and 2005.

Finally, reflecting largely the net result of a decline in the number of casual labourers in BPL households (5.5 million) and a rise in the number of self-employed from (6.2 million), the number of working poor rose by a little over 1 million between 2000 and 2005 with their number totalling a shade under 104.5 million as on January 1, 2005.

EPW

Email: sundaram@econdse.org