SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW may 31, 200891Employment, Wages and Poverty in the Non-Agricultural Sector: All-India, 2000-05K SundaramUseful comments and suggestions from Aditya Bhattacharjea are gratefully acknowledged. The usual disclaimers apply. The author is grateful to Sanjeev Sharma for programming support, Shashi Patwal for secretarial assistance, and to Surjeet Singh, all of the Delhi School of Economics.K Sundaram (sundaram@econdse.org) is with the Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi.Analysing the unit record data from the National Sample Survey (55th and 61st rounds) on employment and unemployment, the organised sector workforce in non-agriculture is shown to be larger than the corresponding Directorate General of Employment and Training estimates by 16.5 million in 2004-05 and to have increased by 5.4 million between 2000 and 2005 instead of the 1.6 million decrease indicated by the correspondingDGE&Testimates. Examining some features of employment contracts of the regular wage/salary workers who account for 88 per cent of the organised sector workforce, it is shown that between14 and 27million of the 41.5 million workers in organised non-agriculture are perhaps better labelled as informal workers who are without access to a set of social securitybenefits, though they are located in the formalsector. An analysis of labour productivity in theorganised-unorganised segments of broad industrygroups for 1999-2000 and 2004-05 is followed by an examination of differences across the organised-unorganised divide in average daily earnings and in the poverty status of adult workers in non-agricultural activities for 2004-05.This paper presents a set of estimates of employment in the organised non-agricultural sector in India for 1999-2000 and 2004-05 based on the 55th and the 61st round National Sample Survey (NSS) Employment-Unemployment Surveys (EUS). We also examine some features of employment contracts of the regular wage/salary(RWS) workers, who account for 88 per cent of the organised non-agricultural sector workforce, with a focus on their access (or, absence thereof) to a range of social security benefits such as pension/provident fund, gratuity and healthcare and maternity benefits. Using our estimate of organised sector employment and estimate of total employment by rural-urban location from our earlier paper [Sundaram 2007b], combined with the National Account Statistics-based (NAS) estimates of net value added (NVA) at constant 1999-2000 prices, separately for the organised and the unorganised segments, we present, for broad industry divisions estimates of labour productivity (NVAs per worker) in the two segments for 1999-2000 and 2004-05. We follow this up with an examination of differences across the organised/unorganised divide in average daily earnings and in the poverty status of workers. 1 DatabaseThe results in this paper are principally based on an analysis of the unit record data from theNSS 55th round (1999-2000) and theNSS 61st round (2004-05) EUS. In both surveys, a set of questions is canvassed about the form of organisation of enterprise (called enterprise type) in which a usual (principal) status worker in non-agricultural activities is at work.1, 2 In theNSS 55th roundEUS, the codes used for the enter-prise type distinguished, besides proprietary enterprises (separately by males and females) and partnership enterprises (with a distinction between those formed with members of the same household and those with members of other households), enterprises in the public sector (code 5), a category called “semi-public” enterprises (code 6) and, others (including cooperative society, public limited company, private limited company and other units covered under Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) (code 7)). Correctly classified, all enterprises with codes 5, 6 and 7, taken together, will correspond to the organised sector as per NAS.3 In theNSS 61st round, while enterprises in the government/public sector (code 5), public/private limited companies (code 6), and, cooperative societies, trust/other non-profit institutions (code 7) are distinguished, other units covered under ASI are not separately coded. However, such units can be identified by the responses to industry of attachment (as per NIC 1998), use of

SPECIAL ARTICLEmay 31, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly92electricity in production and the number of workers in the enterprise where the worker is working. The estimated number of workers in such units, and of workers with enterprise type codes 5, 6 or 7, taken together, will yield an estimate of organised sector workforce conforming to the coverage of the organised sector inNAS.Now, as is well known, the total population as estimated by the NSS surveys are lower (substantially lower for urban India) than the census-based estimates of population. Consequently, the survey-based estimates of total workers in the organised sector will need to be appropriately scaled-up and, with the extent of underestimation of survey-based estimate of population (relative to census-based estimates) varying by gender and by rural-urban location, the scaling-up will need to be done separately for rural males, rural females, urban males and urban females and the all-areas estimate derived by aggregation.2 Organised Sector Employment: The Aggregate PictureThe general perception of declining employment in the organ-ised sector in India is shaped by the Directorate General of Employment and Training (DGE&T) estimates (Table 1). As per these estimates in the five years between March 1, 2000 and March 1, 2005, organised sector employment in non-agricultural activities declined by a little under 1.6 million. Almost all of this decline (1.3 million) has been in the public sector (including government) with the private organised sector too recording a small (0.3 million) decline over this period.Our first alternative estimate (Estimate 1) covers all workers in non-agricultural activities on the usual principal status who report themselves to be employed in government/public sector or public/private limited companies or cooperative enterprises, i e, with enterprise type codes 5, 6 or 7 in the two surveys. For convenience we call this aggregate the corporate segment of the organised sector. In terms of levels, our estimate of workforce in the corporate segment of the organised sector in non-agricultural activities as on January 1, 2000 (the mid-point of the survey year July 1999-June 2000) is higher than the DGE&T estimates for March 31, 2000 by a little over 5.7 million. The corresponding estimate for 2005, at 36.4 million, is higher than theDGE&T estimates by nearly 11.4 million. In terms of change over the period 2000-05, these estimates show an increase in the organised sector (non-agricultural) employment of a shade under 4.1 million.4The above estimates for 2004-05 explicity excludes workers in proprietary/partnership enterprises that fall within the ambit of the Factories Act.5 A correction for this gives rise to our second (conservative) estimate of organised sector employment (Estimate 2). This includes, in addition to all the workers covered under Estimate 1, workers in proprietary/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity and employing 20 or more workers. For 1999-2000, this adds a little over 2.1 million to the organised sector workforce and 3.0 million for 2004-05. Consequently, under our Estimate 2, the increase in organised sector non-agricultural employment between 2000 and 2005 is close to 4.9 million as against a 1.6 million decrease as per the DGE&T estimates.Our finalNSS-based estimate of organised sector employment (Estimate 3) also brings on board workers in proprietary/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity and employing 10-19 workers, in addition to all the workers covered by our Estimate 2. As per this, organised sector employment in non-agricultural activities in 2005 was a little over 41.5 million, ie, 16.5 million more than theDGE&T estimates for that year.6 Also, with parallel estimates for 2000 at 36.1 million, ourNSS-based estimates indicate an increase in the organised sector employment of close to 5.4 million over the 2000-05 quinquennium. Despite this increase in the number of workers, the share of the organised sector in total non-agricultural employment (placed at 159.9 million in 1999-2000andat199.2 million in 2004-05 [See Sundaram, 2007b]) records a decline from 22.6 per cent in 2000 to 20.8 per cent in 2005.3 Structure of Organised Sector, Non-Agricultural Workforce7This section discusses the structure of the organised sector non-agricultural workforce.3.1 IndustrialDistributionComparable DGE&T andNSS-based estimates of organised sector non-agricultural workforce by broad industry divisions as per the NIC 1987 – the classification used byDGE&T – are presented for (March 31/January 1) 2000 and 2005 in Table 2 (p 93). As noted previously, our finalNSS-based estimate (Estimate 3) of organ-ised sector (non-agricultural) employment for 2000, at a little over 36 million is higher than the correspondingDGE&T estimate by 9.6 million, and, this gap between the two estimates widens substantially to a little over 16.5 million in 2005. In both years, two industry divisions, namely, manufacturing and social community and personal services, account for an overwhelming majority of the divergence between the two estimates. In 2000, the divergence between the two estimates for employment in the Table 1: Alternative Estimates of Organised Sector Non-Agricultural Employment: All-India, 2000-05(Number of workers (‘000s)) DGE&T Estimates NSS-Employment Survey-based EstimatesYear Public Private Total Year Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Estimate 32000 18,8007,74226,542200032,26734,466 36,1452005 17,5117,46924,980200536,35939,36141,529Change (-) 1,289 (-) 273 (-) 1,562 Change 4,092 4,881 5,384(1) DGE&T estimates are as on March 31, while NSS survey-based estimates are for the mid-point of the survey years (July-June), i e, January 1 of the reference year. (2) NSS Estimate 1 covers all workers on the usual principal status who report themselves to be employed in government/public sector or public/private limited company or cooperative enterprises. (3) NSS Estimate 2 includes workers in proprietorial/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity and employing 20 or more workers besides all workers covered in Estimate 1. (4) NSS Estimate 3 includes all workers covered in NSS Estimate 2 plus workers in proprietorial/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity and employing 10-19 workers. (5) NSS estimates for 2000 cannot be (and, therefore, to retain comparability with NSS estimates for 2000, the same for 2005 are not) made strictly comparable to DG E&T estimates which have industry divisions as per the NIC 1987. Specifically, employment in cotton ginning, cleaning and baling (NIC 1998 code: 01405) which forms part of manufacturing as per the NIC 1987 but not as per the NIC 1998, totalling 14,000 workers as per the NSS estimates for 2005, is excluded from all NSS estimates for both 2000 and 2005. Sources: All NSS estimates are computed from Unit Record Data for NSS 55th (1999-2000) and 61st round (2004-05) employment surveys. These estimates are built up from separate estimates for rural males, rural females, urban males and urban females, each appropriately scaled up to match segment specific population totals based oninter censal interpolation (for 1999-2000) and, population projections (for 2004-05) [See Sundaram 2007]; DGE&T estimates for March 31, 2000 are drawn from GoI, Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey, 2006-07. DGE&T estimates for March 31, 2005 are from GoI, Ministry of Labour and Employment,Quarterly Employment Review, January-March, 2005, 2007.

SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW may 31, 200893organised manufacturing sector accounted for a little over 34 per cent of the difference between theDGE&T and the NSS-based estimates of total organised non-agriculture employment. And the difference between the two sets of estimates for the social, community and personal services accounted for a further 53 per cent of the overall difference between the DGE&T and the NSS-based estimate of organised sector non-agricultural employ-ment. For 2005, the share of the manufacturing sector in the overall difference between the two estimates goes up to 40.4 per cent while that of the social, community and personal services sector comes down to 43.7 per cent.In terms of change over the period 2000-05, we have already noted the contrasting trends emerging from the DGE&T estimates and the NSS-based estimates in respect of organised sector manufacturing employment: an increase of a little under2.4 million as per theNSS-based estimate compared to a decline by a little under one million as perDGE&T. Similar directional difference between the two sets of estimates also arises in respect of electricity, gas and water; transport, storage and communications; and, the social community and personal services sectors. In respect of two industry divisions – mining and quarrying and finance, insurance, real estate and business services – both data sets show a rise in the organised sector employment. However, in both cases, the size of the increment is larger as per the NSS-based estimate. Surprisingly (given the robust growth inNVA at constant 1999-2000 prices), both data sets indicate a decline in the organised sector employment in construction. This decline is marginally sharper as per the DGE&T. In respect of only one sector – trade, hotels and restaurants – we have a situation where the DGE&T estimates indicate a rise in the organised sector employment – albeit very small – and a decrease (by about 0.25 million) as per theNSS-based estimate. This too doesnot gel well with the sharp rise in the NVA (at 1999-2000 prices) in the organised segment of the trade, hotels and restaurants sector. (See our subsequent discussion on labour productivity in the organised and the unorganised segments of the economy.)With an estimated 199.2 million workers in non-agriculture in 2005 [Sundaram 2007b], our estimate of organised sector non-agricultural employment of 41.5 million would place the size of the unorganised sector non-agricultural employment for 2004-05 at 157.7 million. Parallel estimates for 1999-2000 – a total non-agricultural workforce of 159.9 million, with 36.1 million in the organised segment – puts the size of the unorgan-ised sector non-agricultural workforce at a little over 123.8 million as on January 1, 2000.3.2 Activity-Status Composition of Organised Sector WorkforceIn the next section we examine the nature of job contracts of workers whose self-reported characterisation of the enterprise, where they are at work places them in the organised sector – including proprietary/partnership enterprises coming within the ambit of the Factories Act. Specifically, we examine the presence (absence) of a written job contract, the entitlement (orabsence thereof) to paid leave and to one or more of the following social security benefits: pension/provident fund; gratuity; and, healthcare and maternity benefits. Prima facie, we may expect the prevalence and the terms of job contracts to varyasbetween regular wage/salary workers and casual labourers and as between workers in the proprietary/partnership enterprises on the one hand, and those in government/public sector or public/private limited companies on the other. As a prelude to our analysis of job contracts of the organised sector workforce, we examine the structure of this workforce in terms of their activity-status: the self-employed;RWS workers, and casual labourers, with casual labourers in public works being differentiated from other casual labourers. Table 3 presents the estimates of workers in the organised sector by activity-status categories by gender and rural-urban location. While Panel A of Table 3 presents the estimates of the organised sector workers in government/public sector, public/private limited companies and cooperatives (the corporate segment), the activity-status com-position of workers in proprietary/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity with 10 or more workers (and thus falling within the ambit of the Factories Act) is presented in Panel B. An overwhelming proportion (91 per cent) Table 2: Alternative Estimates of Organised Sector Non-Agricultural Work force by Industry Divisions (NIC 1987)(Number of Workers in ‘000s , All-India) DGE&T Estimates NSS Estimates Industry Division 2000 2005 2000 20051 Mining and quarrying 1,005 1,093 648 9862 +3 Manufacturing 6,616 5,619 9,915 (8,237) 12,317 (10,149)4 Electricity, gas and water 987 909 975 1,1525 Construction 1,149 960 1,680 14376 Trade, hotels and restaurants 493 559 1,152 8957 Transport,communication andstorage 3,147 2,837 3,312 3,4588 FIREBS 1,654 1,931 1,919 2,9939 Social, community and personalservices 11,49411,072 16,544 18,291All 26,545 24,980 36,145 (34,466) 41,529 (39,361)(1) NSS estimates are as per the NIC 1987 tomake them comparable to DGE&T estimates; (2) NSS estimates for the manufacturing sector (and, the corresponding estimates for total non-agricultural workforce) corresponds to NSS Estimate 3 of Table 2 (Table 1). The figures within brackets against manufacturing (all non-agriculture) are the same as NSS Estimate 2 in Table 2 (Table 1); (3) See Note 5 of Table 1.Table 3: Activity Status Composition of Organised Sector Workers in Non-Agriculture by Gender and Rural-Urban Location: All-India, 2004-05.Panel A: Workers in Government/Public Sector, Public/Private Limited Companies and Cooperations Number of Workers by Activity Status (‘000s)Activity Status Rural Males Rural Females Urban Males Urban Females Total PersonsRWS workers 8,985 2,311 17,868 3,915 33,079Casual lab in pub workers 256 111 79 13 459Other casual labour 1,155 276 674 132 2,237Self-employed 2047726637584All 10,6002,775 18,887 4,097 36,359Panel B: Workers in Partnership/Proprietorial Enterprises Engaged in Manufacturing Using Electricity with 10 More WorkersRWS workers 721 79 2,324 316 3,441Other casual labourers 574 136 486 79 1,274Self-employed 258 364 58455All 1,320 223 3,174 453 5,170Source: Unit Record Data, NSS 61st Rural Employment-Unemployment Survey, 2004-05.

SPECIAL ARTICLEmay 31, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly94of the workers in the corporate segment of the organised sector areRWS workers, with the other casual labourers accounting for a further 6 per cent. Even in the proprietary/partnership enter-prises engaged in manufacturing and forming a part of the factory sector, the RWS workers accounted for 67 per cent of the workforce, while the “other casual labourers” accounted for a little under 25 per cent. Taking both segments together, the RWS workers have an overwhelming 88 per cent share of the total organised sector workforce, with the other casual labourers accounting for a further 8.5 per cent. In fact, except in respect of rural female workers in proprietary/partnershipenterprisesin manufacturing in the factory sector, in no segment is the share of RWS workers less than 55 per cent. Even among the rural female workers in the specified categoryofenterprisestheshare of RWS workers is a little over 35 per cent.The dominant share ofRWS workers in virtually all segments of the organised sector workforce noted above, taken together with the fact thatRWS workers in the organised sector formed over 52 per cent of all RWS workers, also, provides the rationale for tracking the growth of “jobs” in the economy by reference to the changes in the number of RWS workers (in the organised and the unorganised sectors taken together) rather than by reference to the DGE&T estimates [Sundaram 2007a].4 Job Contracts and Access to BenefitsIn this section, we examine some facets of quality of employment in the organised sector focusing on the absence of access to a range of benefits such as eligibility for paid leave, provident fund (PF)/pension, gratuity and healthcare and maternity benefits. From the perspective of job security, we examine the proportion of workers currently working without any written jobcontract and juxtapose the same against the workers’ own perception about whether their current employment is temporary or permanent.In this analysis we focus on theRWS workers who formed 88 per cent of the organised sector workforce and the other casual labourers with a 8.5 per cent share of the organised sector workforce.8 We distinguish the outcomes by gender and by rural-urban location, and in each case, also distinguish between enter-prises in the corporate segment of the organised sector and the proprietary/partnership enterprises in the factory sector – what we call the non-corporate factory sector.9Consider first the proportion of the organised sector workers who report themselves to be working without any written job contract. As can be readily seen from Table 4, in line with prior expectations, the absence of a written contract is near total for the other casual labourers – irrespective of whether they are located in the corporate segment or in the non-corporate factory sector. Within the corporate segment, even though the proportion of other casual labourers without any written contract is somewhat smaller in the government/public sector than in the other components of the corporate sector, except in respect of urban males 75 per cent of whom are working without a written job contract, this proportion is close to or above 90 per cent. In the case of the RWS workers in the non-corporate factory sector, the proportion of such workers without a written job contract is upwards of 76 per cent and, in respect of rural females this proportion is as high as 92 per cent. Taking the RWS workers in the corporate segment – which houses 91 per cent of all RWS workers in the organised sector – the proportion of RWS workers without a written contract ranges between 30 and 37 per cent. Within the corporate sector, among RWS workers in government/public sector, the proportion currently working without a written job contract is lower – between 21 and 27 per cent. However, for the RWS workers in the public/private limited companies, this propor-tion is significantly higher: ranging from 45 per cent (urban males) to as high as 79 per cent (rural females).From the perspective of perceived job security, it is important to note that, relative to the proportion of the organised sector workforce without a job contract – a weighted average of 36 per cent ofRWS workers, 95 per cent for other casual labourers and 41 per cent overall – a significantly smaller proportion of these workers perceives their current employment to be temporary. Thus, less than 21 per cent of all RWS workers (15 per cent in the corporate segment) view their current employment to be temporary. Within the corporate segment, the proportion of RWS workers perceiving their employment to be temporary is even smaller in government/public sector – ranging from less than 5 per cent for urban males to less then 10 per cent for both rural and urban females. Significantly, even among the other casual labourers only 61 per cent of them perceive their employment to be temporary while 95 per cent of them are working without a written job contract. Taking bothRWS workers and other casual labourers together – accounting for over 96 per cent of the organised sector workforce – less than a quarter (24 per cent) of them view their current employment to be temporary.The proportion of RWS workers not eligible for paid leave (21.4 per cent in the corporate and the non-corporate segments taken together) is only marginally higher than the proportion of such workers who view their current employment to be Table 4: Job Contracts and Access to Benefits of RWS Workers and Other Casual Labourers in the Organised Non-Agricultural Sector by Gender and Rural-Urban Location and Enterprise Type: All-India, 2004-05(Percentage)Benefits Enterprise Type 5-7-All Enterprise Type 1-4 in Manufacturing Non-Agriculture Using Electricity with 10 or More Workers Rural RuralUrbanUrbanRural RuralUrbanUrban Males Females Males FemalesMales Females MalesFemales Panel A: Regular Wage/Salary WorkersNo written contract 32.49 36.85 30.96 29.67 88.13 92.17 77.91 76.47Temporary employment 16.95 26.62 12.42 19.02 38.49 51.89 78.09 78.76No paid leave 19.50 30.33 13.23 17.48 66.23 79.81 68.39 70.00Social security benefits None 25.68 46.40 15.98 24.70 71.73 77.27 72.29 68.15All 47.43 31.72 55.44 52.13 4.41 11.46 9.09 9.19 Panel B:Other Casual LabourersNo written contract 93.95 96.39 89.71 96.32 99.53 91.11 99.38 100.00Temporary employment 69.01 66.62 77.04 92.03 53.52 66.53 20.71 21.24No paid leave 96.33 95.62 97.47 99.17 100.00 95.27100.00 100.00Social security benefits None 96.27 95.81 95.47 95.18 97.93 91.56 97.69 98.06All 0.731.052.271.590.840.39NILNIL (1) Enterprise Type 5-7 covers government/public sector; public/private limited companies; and, cooperatives. (2) Enterprise Type 1-4 covers proprietary and partnership enterprises.Source: Computed from Unit Record Data of NSS 61st round Employment-Unemployment Survey, 2004-05.

SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW may 31, 200895temporary. As one would expect, within the corporate segment, the proportion of RWS workers in the government/public sector whoarenot eligible for paid leave is even smaller: less than 8 per cent.In the case of other casual labourers, the proportion not entitled to paid leave (98 per cent) is even higher than the proportion of such workers who are working without any written job contract (95 per cent). That the absence of entitlement to paid leave is inherent in employment as casual labour rather than a feature of the type of enterprise in which they are employed is clear from the fact that even for the other casual labourers working in government/public sector the proportion not entitled to paid leave is close to or above 90 per cent. In fact, for urban female other casual labourers in government/public sector, the proportion not eligible for paid leave is as high as 99.4 per cent.Entitlement to a range of social security benefits like PF/pension, gratuity, and healthcare and maternity benefits is often seen as the hallmark of good quality organised sector employ-ment. As one would expect, close to 97 per cent of the other casual labourers are not receiving the listed social security benefits. As far as the RWS workers are concerned, those employed in the non-corporate factory enterprises are distinctly worse off than their counterparts in the corporate segment of the organ-ised sector. Thus, close to 72 per cent of the former (i e, the RWS workers in non-corporate factory enterprises) are not eligible for any of the listed social security benefits compared to 22 per cent of the RWS workers in the corporate segment who are not eligible for any of the social security benefits.Focusing on the RWS workers who are eligible for one or more of the social security benefits (78 per cent in the corporate segment and 28 per cent in the non-corporate factory enter-prises), a little over 51 per cent of all RWS workers in the corporate segment of the organised sector are eligible for all the listed social security benefits, namely,PF/pension; gratuity, and healthcare and maternity benefits. As one would expect, the proportion of RWS workers entitled to the full range of social security benefits is significantly higher for those of them who are employed in government/public sector: close to 70 per cent in urban India, 54 per cent in rural India and 64 per cent in the country as a whole. In the non-corporate segment of the organised sector, a little over 8 per cent of the RWS workers enjoy the full range of social security benefits. Taking both the corporate and the non-corporate segments together, a little over 47 per cent of the RWS workers in the organised sector are entitled to all the listed social security benefits. A little over a quarter (26.3 per cent) of the RWS workers in the organised sector have access to one or more (but not all) of the listed social security benefits leaving a further 26.5 per cent of such workers who are not entitled to even one of the listed social security benefits.In a situation where over 96 per cent of the other casual labou-rers are not entitled to any of the listed social security benefits, it should not be a surprise that only 1 per cent of such workers in the organised sector non-agricultural activities have access to all the listed social security benefits with a further 2.5 per cent of such workers having access to one or more (but not all) of the listed social security benefits.Taking both the corporate and the non-corporate segments and the RWS workers and other casual labourers together, a little over 43 per cent of them have access to the full range of social security benefits, with a further 24 per cent being entitled to one or more (but not all) of the listed social security benefits.If we define absence of quality employment by reference to a situation where the worker is not entitled to any of the listed social security benefits, then, about a third (32.6 per cent) of the organised sector non-agricultural workforce does not enjoy good quality employment. If we use the more stringent criterion of entitlement to all of the listed social security benefits, then this proportion will go up to 57 per cent. In absolute terms, between 13.6 and 26.6 million of the 41.5 millionworkers in the organised non-agricultural sector in India in 2005, are, perhaps better labelled as informal workers (in terms of lack of access to benefits of labour legislation) in the formal sector defined by reference to form of organisation of production.5 Labour Productivity in Non-AgricultureIn this section, we present and analyse the estimates of labour productivity in terms of NVA per worker, wages of adult (15-59) workers and of the proportion of such workers located in below-poverty line (BPL) households. In each case, we distinguish between the organised and the unorganised segments of the non-agricultural economy. Labour productivity estimates are presented for broad industry groups as per the national industrial classification (NIC) 1998 to correspond to the classification used in theNAS for NVA estimates, and, for the non-agricultural sector as a whole. These estimates are presented for two years: 1999-2000 and 2004-05.The first step in deriving the estimates of labour productiv-ity for the organised and the unorganised segments of the identified industry groups is to derive the estimates of workforce in the two segments. Given our estimates of organised sector workforce by industry groups for the two years (modified to correspond toNIC 1998), the estimates of workforce in the unorganised segment of the identified industry groups are derived, by subtraction, from the estimates of total workforce by industry drawn from our earlier paper [Sundaram 2007b].The estimates of NVA by industry group at constant 1999-2000 prices for the two years, as also an organised-unorganised break-up of NVA by industry for 1999-2000, are directly available from NAS 2007 [GOI, CSO 2007]. Also available are the estimates for 2004-05 NVA (at constant 1999-2000 prices) in registered (organised) and unregistered (unorganised) manu-facturing; in railways; and, in public administration and defence (both entirely in the organised sector). For other indus-try groups (or components thereof), an organised-unorganised division of total NVA at 1999-2000 prices is obtained by reference to a similar break-up of NVA at current prices available inNAS 2007.

SPECIAL ARTICLEmay 31, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly96Table 5 presents the estimates of workforce,NVA and of NVA per worker by industry-group and for the total non- agricultural sector for 1999-2000 (PanelA) and 2004-05 (Panel B),distinguishing, in each case, the organised and the unorganised segments.As noted earlier, social, community and personal services, and manufacturing are the two largest industry-groups in terms of organised sector workforce. They are also the two largest groups in terms of value added. Transport and communication and storage is the third largest industry in terms of workforce and, in terms of NVA, it is finance, insurance, real estate and business services (FIREBS) that is the largest industry-group in the organised segment of non-agriculture. In the unorganised sector, in terms of both workforce and NVA, trade, hotels and restaurants constitute the largest sector followed by manufacturing. Social, community and personal services is the third largest industry in the unorganised non-agricultural sector in terms of the workforce; in terms of NVA, transport, communications and storage occupies the third place.In terms of levels of labour productivity, the NVA per worker in the unorganised segment of total non-agriculture sector was less than 24 per cent (23.7 per cent to be precise) of theNVA per worker in the organised segment in 1999-2000 with only a fractional decline in this ratio to 23.6 per cent in 2004-05. This ratio (of NVA per worker in the unorganised segment to that in the organised segment) was the lowest in the construction sector (14.6 per cent) and the highest (37.0 per cent) in transport, communications and storage, with the ratio at around 17 per cent in three industry-groups – manufacturing, trade, hotels and restaurants, and, FIREBS – and at 28 per cent in social, community and personal services, in 1999-2000.Over the 2000-05 period, only for two of the major industry groups we find an improvement (a significant one from 28 to 36 per cent in social, community and per-sonal services) in labour produc-tivity in the unorganised segment relative to that in the organised segment. In the other industry groups, we have a significant deterioration in the labour produc-tivity inthe unorganised segment relative to that in the organised seg-ment: from 17.4 to 14.8 per cent in manufacturing; from 14.6 to 9.7 per cent in construction; from 17.5 to 10.2 per cent in trade, hotels and res-taurants, and from 37.0 to 31.8 per cent in transport, communications and storage.In terms of growth over the pe-riod 2000-05, workforce growth in total non-agriculture and in all industry-groups, except electric-ity,gas and water, has been faster in the unorganised segment. More surprisingly, for all non-agricul-tural activities taken together and in all major industry-groups ex-cept mining and quarrying, manufacturing and trade,hotelsand restaurants, theNVA at constant 1999-2000 prices has grown faster in the unorganised than in the organised segment.10The strong growth ofNVA in unorganised non-agriculture at close to 9 per cent per annum also meant that, despite the work-force in this segment growing at close to 5 per cent per annum, labour productivity (in terms of NVA per worker) in the unorgan-ised non-agricultural activities grew at a little over 3.7 per cent per annum over the period 1999-2000 to 2004-05. However, the much slower growth of workforce in the organised segment of non-agriculture (2.8 per cent per annum) ensures a faster growth of NVA per worker in this segment (relative to unorganised Table 5: Employment, Net Value Added and Labour Productions in the Organised and the Unorganised Segments of Non-Agriculture by Broad Industry Divisions: All-India, 1999-2000 – 2004-05. Workforce (000) Net Value-Added (Rs Crore) NVA Per Worker (Rs)S No Ind division (NIC 1998) Total Organised Unorganised Total OrganisedUnorganisedTotal OrganisedUnorganised Panel A: 1999-20001 Mining and quarrying 1,883 650 1,233 32,975 30,208 2,767 1,75,119 4,64,738 22,4412 Manufacturing 44,260 9,903 34,357 2,06,126 1,28,653 77,473 46,572 1,29,913 22,5493 Electricity,gas and water 1,054 975 79 24,204 23,546 658 2,29,639 2,41,497 83,2914 Construction 17,747 1,680 16,607 99,312 40,691 58,621 55,960 2,42,208 35,2995 Trade,hotels and restaurants 41,453 1,305 40,148 2,48,196 38,822 2,09,374 59,874 2,97,487 52,1516 Transport,communication and storage 14,848 3,312 11,536 1,05,793 46,249 59,544 71,251 1,39,641 51,6167 FIREBS 4,925 1,977 2,948 1,37,516 1,10,002 27,514 2,79,220 5,56,409 93,3318 Social,community and personal services 33,727 16,343 17,384 2,46,738 1,89,843 56,845 73,157 1,16,162 32,7009 Total non-agriculture 1,59,897 36,145 1,23,752 11,00,860 6,08,014 4,92,846 68,848 1,68,215 39,825 Panel B:2004-051 Mining and quarrying 2,548 996 1,552 42,324 38,982 3,342 1,66,107 3,91,386 21,534 (6.24) (8.91) (4.71) (5.12) (5.23) (3.85) (-1.05) (-3.38) (-0.82)2 Manufacturing 55,900 12,304 43,596 2,77,237 1,81,617 95,620 49,595 1,47,608 21,933 (4.78) (4.44) (4.88) (6.11) (7.14) (4.30) (1.27) (2.59) (-0.55)3 Electricity,gas and water 1,211 1,152 59 28,727 27,363 1,364 2,37,217 2,37,526 2,31,186 (2.82) (3.39) (-5.67) (3.49) (3.05) (15.70) (0.65) (-0.33) (22.65)4 Construction 25,998 1,437 24,561 1,50,510 56,533 93,977 57,893 3,93,410 38,263 (7.94) (-3.08) (8.14) (8.67) (6.80) (9.90) (0.68) (10.19) (1.63)5 Trade,hotels and restaurants 49,593 967 48,626 3,65,739 59,768 3,05,971 73,748 6,18,077 62,923 (3.65) (-5.82) (3.91) (8.06) (9.01) (7.88) (4.26) (15.75) (3.83)6 Transport,communication and storage 18,587 3,458 15,129 2,02,097 84,580 1,17,517 1,08,730 2,44,592 77,677 (4.59) (0.87) (5.57) (13.82) (12.83) (14.57) (8.82) (11.86) (8.52)7 FIREBS 7,780 3,021 4,759 2,13,974 1,65,144 48,830 2,75,031 5,46,473 1,02,627 (9.58) (8.86) (10.04) (9.24) (8.47) (12.16) (-0.30) (-0.36) (1.91)8 Social,community and personal services 37,619 18,194 19,425 3,16,853 2,29,140 87,713 84,227 1,25,943 45,155 (2.21) (2.17) (2.25) (5.13) (3.83) (9.06) (2.86) (1.63) (6.67)9 Total non-agriculture 1,99,236 41,529 1,57,707 15,97,461 8,43,127 7,54,334 80,179 2,03,021 47,831 (4.50) (2.82) (4.97) (7.73) (6.76) (8.89) (3.09) (3.83) (3.73)(1) Workforce estimates by Industry Division are as per NIC 1998 to correspond to NIC codes used for NVA estimates; (2) See Note 2 in Table 4; (3) Estimates of NVA for the FIREBS exclude rental income (mostly imputed) from ownership of dwellings. In the absence of estimates of capital consumption allowance (CCA) separately for dwellings, the figures for CCA for ownership of dwellings and business services is deducted from the GDP from ownership of dwellings to derive NVA from ownership of dwellings and excluded from the estimates of NVA for the FIREBS sector total and for unorganised sector; (4) Workforce estimates (total) by industry are drawn from Sundaram (2007b); (5) All estimates of NVA and NVA per worker are at constant 1999-2000 prices. For 1999-2000, the orgainsed/unorganised break-up is directly available in NAS, 2007. For 2004-05 this is obtained by reference to a break-up available at current prices in NAS, 2007; (6) Figures within brackets below the level estimates for 2004-05 indicate the compound rate of growth (per cent per annum) between 1999-2000 and 2004-05.

SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW may 31, 200897segment of non-agriculture) at a little over 3.8 per cent per an-num despite a slower growth in total NVA in the organised non-agriculture. With labour productivity in the unorganised segment of non-agriculture being less than one-fourth the NVA per worker in organised non-agriculture, the significantly faster growth of workforce in the low-productivity unorganised seg-ment also drags down the growth rate of over all labour produc-tivity in non-agriculture to a little under 3.1 per cent for annum over the period 2000-05.6 Wages and PovertyWe begin by examining the average daily earnings of adultRWS – workers and other casual labourers differentiated by gender, rural-urban location, and from the perspective of this paper, by the type of enterprise in which the worker is employed – as reported by the worker. We distinguish proprietary/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity with 10 or more workers and thus falling within the ambit of the factory sector from other proprietary/partnership enterprises. Also, within what we have labelled (for convenience) the corporate segment of the organised sector, we distinguish employment in government/public sector from that in public/private limited companies as well as those at work in cooperative societies/trust/other non-profit institutions. The estimates of average daily earnings in the survey year (July-June) 2004-05 are presented in Table 6.In respect ofRWS-workers, the structure of wage differentials by gender, rural-urban location and by enterprise type, by and large conforms to a priori expectations. Adult wages are higher for males relative to females, higher in urban areas relative to rural areas. Also as expected, wages in the corporate segment are higher than those in proprietary/partnership enterprises in the factory sector which, in turn, are higher than those in other proprietary/partnership enterprises. Also, within the corporate segment, the average daily earnings are higher in government/public sector relative to those in public/private limited compa-nies which, in turn, are generally higher (except for rural females) than the average daily earnings of RWS workers in cooperatives/trust/non-profit institutions.Staying with theRWS-workers, except in respect of female workers in public/private limited companies, gender-differentials, for a given enterprise type, are greater than the rural-urban differentials for a given gender. Both in rural and in urban areas, the gender differentials are the least for workers in the coopera-tives/trust/non-profit institutions, and with the just noted excep-tion of rural female workers in public/private limited companies, is the highest in proprietary/partnership enterprises outside the factory sector. Also, gender differentials in urban India are lower than those in rural India. This is true irrespective of the type of enterprise in which the workers are located.The structure of average daily earnings of other casual labourers, however, does throw up a number of surprises. Thus, for rural males, the average daily earnings in the non-factory proprietary enterprises are higher than those in the corporate segment of the organised sector. The wages of the other casual labourers are the highest in the proprietary/partnership enterprises in the factory sector. This result also holds true for rural females.11In urban India the differentials across enterprise type in wages of adult casual labourers generally follow the expected pattern: the wages are the lowest in the non-factory proprietary/partner-ship enterprises and the highest in the corporate segment of the organised sector, with the wages in proprietary/partnership enterprises in the factory sector located in between. Within the corporate segment, there are interesting differences as between urban males and urban females. For urban male other casual labourers the highest average earnings are reported by those working in public/private limited companies while those work-ingincooperatives, etc, have the lowest wage in the corporate segment with those in government/public sector enterprises getting a wage closer to but less than that in public/private limited companies. In respect of urban female other casual labourers, the average daily earnings are the highest for those working in cooperatives, etc, and the least for those working in public/private limited companies.Another feature of the structure of average daily earnings of other casual labourers is that the rural-urban differentials are strikingly smaller than those observed for RWS workers. In fact, in three cases – male workers in proprietary/partnership enter-prises in the factory sector as well as those working in coopera-tives, etc, and women workers in non-factory proprietary/part-nership enterprises – the rural wages are higher.In a situation where the all-India urban poverty line (Rs 538.60) (as per the Planning Commission) is higher than the rural poverty line (Rs 356.30) by a little over 51 per cent, the wage differentials for male workers – whether RWS workers or other casual labourers – is much smaller, if not negative.In respect of female workers also, the same is generally true.The exceptions are the RWS workers in public/private limited companies (and given their large share, in corporate segment as a whole as well), and other casual laboureres in cooperatives, etc.In assessing the wages of adult workers in the organised and the unorganised segments of non-agriculture, it is important to note that the all-India poverty lines of the Planning Commission for 2004-05 – Rs 356.30 for rural India and Rs 538.60 for urban India – translate into an average daily per capita consumption of a little less than Rs 12 in rural India and Rs 18 in urban India. It is Table 6: Average Daily Earnings of RWS Workers and Other Casual Labourers in Non-Agricultural Activities by Gender, Rural-Urban Location and by Type of Enterprise: All-India, 2004-05(Average Daily Earnings of Adult (15-59) Workers Rs (0.00)) Rural Males Rural Females Urban Males Urban FemalesEnterprise Type RWS- OCL RWS- OCL RWS- OCL OCL RWS- Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers1-4 Non-factory 68.20 65.82 36.79 41.87 87.97 67.49 41.64 38.921-4 Factory 91.76 78.70 51.32 46.17 124.74 73.96 80.08 46.575 238.60 65.18 136.22 43.74 324.00 72.52 277.37 64.846 176.41 66.13 59.11 37.33 271.94 76.86 225.41 54.407 160.00 64.77 93.78 43.24 178.32 59.11 171.48 99.135-7 220.06 65.79 120.93 40.40 300.09 75.43 250.54 58.92(1) Computed from Unit Record Data; (2) Enterprise Type 1-4 non-factory: Proprietary/partnership enterprises excluding such enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electrical and employing 10 or more workers, i e, those in the factory sector; (3) Enterprise Type 1-4 Factory: Proprietary/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing in the factory sector; (4) Enterprise Type 5: government/public sector; (5) Enterprise Type 6: public/private limited company; (6) Enterprise Type 7: Cooperative societies/trust/other non-profit institutions.

SPECIAL ARTICLEmay 31, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly98noteworthy that the average daily earnings of all workers – be it RWS-workers or other casual labourers, males or females – irrespective of whether they are in the organised sector or in non-factory proprietary/partnership enterprises, are significantly higher than the values of daily per capita consumption by the official poverty line.This leads us to assess the proportion of adult usual (principal) status workers in non-agriculture who are inBPL households. We differentiate by rural-urban location and by three broad types of enterprises in which the workers report themselves to be at work: proprietary/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity and employing 10 or more workers and thus located in the factory sector; the residual category of the non-factory propri-etary/partnership enterprises that constitute the unorganised sector; and, the corporate segment of the organised sector. The head count ratios, separately for the self-em-ployed, the RWS- workers, and the other casual labourers, are presented in Table 7.Consider first the workers in the unorganised sector. Taking all three types of workers together, in rural India less than one-fifth of adult workers in the unorganised segment of non-agriculture are in BPL households. In urban India, the proportion of unorgani-sed sector workers so placed is a little less than 24 per cent. As one would expect, the head count ratio is the least for RWS workers and the highest for the other casual labourers. For the latter group, the proportion in BPL households is a little under 41 per cent in urban India and a little less than 26 per cent in rural India. The head count ratio for the self-employed (who account for a little over 59 per cent of the unorganised sector non-agricultural workforce in both rural and urban India) is significantly higher than that for the RWS workers, but, especially in urban India, significantly lower than the proportion of other casual labourers in BPL households.Across the three enterprise types, the head count ratios for all workers taken together is the lowest in the corporate segment and the highest in the unorganised sector, with the head count ratio for the workers in the non-corporate factory sector lying in between. The difference between the corporate and the non-corporate segments of the organised sector in terms of pro-portion of workers inBPL house-holds is less marked in rural India than in urban India. In rural India, thanks to the higher aver-age daily earnings of other casual labourers in the non-corporate factory segment relative to the average daily earnings of such workers in the corporate segment, the proportion of other casual labourers in the non-corporate factory segment who are inBPL-households is significantly lower than is the case for such workers in the corporate segment of the organised sector. In urban India, the average daily earnings of RWS workers – accounting for close to 95 per cent of the workforce in the corporate segment and 73 per cent of the workforce in the non-corporate factory sector – are substantially higher in the corporate segment than in the non-corporate factory sector (140 per cent higher for males and Table 7: Percentage of Adult (15-59)Workers in BPL Households by Enterprise Type, Rural-Urban Location and Activity-Status: All-India, 2004-05. Percentage of Adult Workers in BPL HouseholdsEnterprise Type/ Rural UrbanActivity Status 1-4 Non-Factory 1-4 Factory 5-7 1-4 Non-Factory 1-4 Factory 5-7Self-employed 18.61 NIL 17.00 21.96 6.32 10.54RWS-workers 11.89 5.98 5.76 16.77 7.45 4.67Other casual labourers 25.78 16.64 23.99 40.97 24.74 26.55All 19.77 10.76 8.44 23.75 10.01 5.62(1) Computed from Unit Record Data; (2) For methodology used for deriving estimates of percentage of workers in BPL-households, see Sundaram and Tendulkar (2005).SAMEEKSHA TRUST BOOKSInclusive GrowthK N Raj on Economic DevelopmentEssays from The Economic Weekly and Economic & Political WeeklyEdited by ASHOKA MODYThe essays in the book reflect Professor K N Raj’s abiding interest in economic growth as a fundamental mechanism for lifting the poor and disadvantaged out of poverty. He has also been concerned that the political bargaining process may end up undermining growth and not provide support to those who were excluded from access to economic opportunities. These essays, many of them classics and all published in Economic Weekly and Economic & Political Weekly, are drawn together in this volume both for their commentary on the last half century of economic development and for their contemporary relevance for understanding the political economy of development in India and elsewhere.Pp viii + 338 ISBN 81-250-3045-X 2006 Rs 350Available fromOrient Longman LtdMumbai Chennai New Delhi Kolkata Bangalore Bhubaneshwar Ernakulam Guwahati Jaipur LucknowPatna Chandigarh Hyderabad Contact: info@orientlongman.com

SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW may 31, 200899213 per cent higher for females). This results in a significantly lower proportion of RWS workers inBPL households in the corpo-rate segment relative to such workers in the non-corporate fac-tory sector. This results in a wider gap in the over-all head count ratio in the two segments in urban India than in rural India.7 SummaryandConclusionsIn terms of the size of the organised sector workforce in non- agriculture, our NSS-based estimate of a little over 41.5million for 2005 is larger than the corresponding estimate from theDGE&T estimate by over 16.5 million. Further, our estimates show a growth of this workforce by nearly 5.4 million over the 2000-05 period instead of a 1.6 million decline indicated by the DGE&T estimates.In the country as a whole, with only 41.5 million workers in the organised segment of non-agriculture out of a total non-agricultural workforce of a little over 199.2 million in 2004-05 [Sundaram 2007b], the number of unorganised sector workers in non-agriculture is a little over 157.7 million in 2004-05.12Further, our analysis of job contracts of workers in the organi-sed non-agricultural sector shows that seen by reference to entitlements (or, rather, absence thereof) to a set of social security benefits, between 14 and 27 million of the 41.5 million organised sector workers in 2004-05 are perhaps better labelled as informal workers in the formal sector.In terms of labour productivity, despite a healthy 3.7 per cent per annum growth between 2000 and 2005, NVA per worker in the unorganised non-agriculture in 2005 is less than a quarter of that in the organised segment.An analysis of average daily earnings ofRWS-workers and of other casual labourers shows the structure of wage – differen-tials, by gender, rural-urban location and by enterprise type to conform, by and large to a priori expectations: higher in urban areas, for male workers and for workers in the corporate segment relative to the non-corporate factory sector which, in turn, are higher than the wages in the unorganised sector.Finally, our analysis of the poverty-status of usual (principal) status workers in non-agriculture shows that across the three broad types of enterprises analysed, the head count ratios for all workers taken together is the lowest in the corporate segment of the organised sector and the highest in the unorganised sector with the head count ratio of workers in the non-corporate factory sector lying in between.Notes 1 It needs to be stressed that the set of questions is addressed only to the workers on the usual princi-pal status workers in non-agriculture. In parti-cular, it does not cover workers on the subsidiary status.2 This covered all workers in industry divisions 10-99 as per NIC 1998. Additionally, in the NSS 61st Round, workers in industry groups 012, 014 and 015 and division 02 (all as per NIC 1998) were also canvassed for these questions. 3 Analysis of 55th round unit record data showed the presence of a sizeable number of workers in manufacturing enterprises among proprietary and partnership enterprises that fall in the factory sector, i e, those using electricity and employing 10 or more workers. 4 These estimates also match the estimates given in the NSS Report on Informal Sector and Condi-tions of Employment in India 2004-05 [GoI, NSSO, 2007] after they are scaled-up to reflect the population estimates for January 2005 in the four population segments as per the export group on population projections. 5 Formally, Code 7, “others”, used in the 1999-2000 survey includes “other units covering under ASI”. However, our tabulation of unit record data showed the presence of a substantial number of workers in proprietary/partnership enterprises engaged in manufacturing using electricity and employing 10 or more workers. 6 In its recent report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) presents an estimate of organised sector employment (see Table 1.1, p 4) that is much higher – 54.1 million for 1999-2000 and 62.6 million for 2004-05 – than our estimates [NCEUS 2007]. They have, however, not explained how they have arrived at these figures. As noted in footnote 5, our NSS Estimate 1 closely matches the estimates given in the published NSS report for the number of workers in government/public sector; public/private limited companies’ and, cooperatives, etc, – all taken together – after they are adjusted for the underlying population totals. The othercomponents underlying our final estimate for total organised sector workforce in non-agricultural activities, have been fully explained in the text. It needs to be stressed that our estimates for 2004-05 excludes workers in NIC groups 012, 014, 015, 02 and 05 and cover only NIC groups strictly comparable to the estimates for 1999-2000. In 2004-05, appropriately adjusted for population, workers in the above noted excluded NIC groups totalled only 2,30,000. So that, even if we add these workers,the NSS-based estimate of total organised sector non-agricul-tural workforce would be 41.7 million. Of course, doing so would render this estimate for 2004-05 non-agriculture non-comparable the estimates for 1999-2000.7 A fuller discussion of estimates of organised sector manufacturing employment and of the gender and rural-urban composition, not included here due to space constraints, is available in the working paper version of this paper (See, Working Paper No 165, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics, March 2008).8 This leaves out the casual labourers in public Works (forming just a shade over 1 per cent of the organised sector workforce) and the self-employed for whom the set of questions have little meaning.9 Within the corporate sector, in rural areas, the RWS workers are overwhelmingly (72 per cent for males and 76 per cent for females) in the govern-ment/public sector enterprises. Even in urban areas close to two-thirds ofRWS workers are in government/public sector. About 31 per cent of urban maleRWS workers and about 22 per cent of urban female RWS workers are in public/private limited companies. In respect of other casual labourers, in urban areas, both for males and females, an overwhelming proportion of these (74 per cent for males and 71 per cent for females) are engaged by public/private limited companies, with between 23-26 per cent employed in govern-ment/public sector. In respect of rural male other casual labourers too, public/private limited companies have the dominant share (63.5 per cent) with the government/public sector account-ing for a little over 31 per cent of such workers. In respect of female other casual labourers in rural India these two components of the corporate sector have each over 40 per cent share with the public/private limited companies having a 47 per cent share. To avoid clutter, all estimates in Table 6 will differentiate the non-corporate factory sector from those for the corporate segment taken as a whole without separate estimates for the government/public sector; the private limited companies; and, the cooperatives.10 It is possible, but perhaps not probable, that our procedure of allocating the total NVA of an industry-group at constant 1999-2000 prices as between the organised and the unorganised segment by reference to such a break-up available for NVA at current prices – used in all cases except manufacturing, railways and public administra-tion and defence, where constant price estimates were directly available – may have partly contri-buted to this result.11 Given that this component is restricted to enter-prises engaged in manufacturing, one needs to check whether this is true for labourers in the enterprises in the corporate segment which are engaged in manufacturing. It turns out that the average daily earnings in Manufacturing of rural male (as also rural female) – other casual labourers in the corporate segment are indeed lower – whether they are in government/public sector or in public/private limited compa-nies or in cooperative and trust/other non-profit institutions.12 Parallel estimates for 1999-2000 – a total non- agricultural workforce of 159.9 million with 36.1 million in the organised segment – puts the size of the total unorganised sector non-agricultural workforce at a little over 123.8 million as on January 1, 2000.ReferencesGoI (2007): ‘Informal Sector and Conditions of Employment in India 2004-05’, NSS 61st round (July 2004 – June 2005), Government of India National Sample Survey Organisation, New Delhi, April.NCEUS (2007): Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, Government of India, National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, New Delhi, August.Sundaram, K (2007a): ‘Growth of Work Opportunities in India: 1983 – 1999-2000’ in A Vaidyanathan and K L Krishna (eds):Institutions and Markets in India’s Development, Essays for K N Raj, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.– (2007b): ‘Employment and Poverty in India, 2000-05’,Economic & Political Weekly, July 28.