March 16, 2016

Unpaid Women Worker as Disguised Exclusion: The Indian Perspective

By India TeamPrincipal Investigator: Wendy Olsen

India PI: Amaresh DubeyIndia CO-PI: Anup K Mishra

Field Coordinator: Santosh K Singh

International Conference onLessons from a Decade’s Research on Poverty:

Innovation, Engagement and ImpactPretoria, SA

This presentation

India part of the work: secondary data analysis and field survey

Activity status and definition of labour supply

Trends in female labour supply

Contextualizing the Indian perspective: socio-religious and

cultural context

Unpaid Women Worker

Bangladesh part of the work: time-use and Interview data

Concluding observations

• In spite of high economic growth during last decades there hasbeen low rate of female labour force participation (FLP) in India.

• This has been the recent issue that have to be looked uponthoroughly.

• More than in any other area it is in the recording of the work doneby women that serious in accuracies and measurement failureaccrue.

• As a result, there participation in the economy in undermined.

• The experience from other countries suggest that the combinedeffect of economic growth, rising educational label among womenand falling fertility rates leads to increasing participation ofwomen in labour force.

Introduction

• India’s rate of economic growth has averaged over 6per cent since 1991, female literacy rates haveincreased from 53.7 per cent in 2001 to 64.5 per cent in2011.

• In spite of this, female workforce participation rates fellfrom 33.1 per cent in 1977-78 to 26.1 per cent in 2009-10 for rural females and from 15.6 per cent in 1977-78 to13.8 per cent in 2009-2010 (using employment inprincipal and subsidiary status, see Himanshu (2011).

Introduction

• Census after Census, women's contribution has been rendered invisible byfailing to quantify their work inputs, especially in agriculture and theunorganized sector.

• Women are known to work longer hours than men and to participate in thework force to a far greater extent than is measured by the data gathered inthe census. But a lot of the work they do is unrecognized, leave alonerewarded with equal remuneration.

• Traditionally, men spend most of their time on tasks for which payment isreceived or tasks that are clearly within the realm of "economic activity" (Mehta, 2000) .

• However, while a large number of women work outside the home and areremunerated for the work they do, most women spend several hours doingwork for which no payment is received.

• This seems as a disguised exclusion of rural household women from themainstream of economy. The effort of the present paper is to only investigate

Introduction

• The main aim of this paper is to investigate women’s unpaidhousehold work in the rural India and attempts to assess aneconomic value for it.

• The specific objectives of this paper are to obtain primarydata of socio-economic status of the rural household, analyzethe average daily time spent on unpaid work and to accessand assign an approximate economic value to the unpaidwork.

• The research carried time use survey in three states of NorthIndia i.e Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand of rural areas.The sample consisted of around 500 rural men and women ineach category.

Objective and Methodology of the Study

Socio-religious and cultural context: India

Indian population structure

Hindu Verna system--- hierarchical social structure along caste

lines, influenced occupational outcomes

Religious influences: indigenous and outside

Socio-religious categories

Does it have any influence on labour supply??

Population Structure: Social Group and Religion

Social Group Population Share

ST 8.7

SC 18.8

OBC 44.0

OTH 28.4

All 100.0

Religion Population Share

Hindu 81.4

Muslims 13.8

Christians 2.1

ORM 2.7

All 100.0

Population structure: Social group x Religion

R/S ST SC OBC OTH All

Hindu 86.6 93.9 81.9 70.7 81.4

Muslims 1.8 0.2 16.0 23.3 13.8

Christians 8.7 0.2 1.4 2.3 2.1

ORM 2.9 5.7 0.8 3.8 2.7

All 100 100 100 100 100

R/S ST SC OBC OTH All

Hindu 9.2 21.8 44.3 24.7 100

Muslims 1.1 0.3 50.8 47.8 100

Christians 36.6 2.0 29.9 31.5 100

ORM 9.1 39.0 12.7 39.3 100

All 8.7 18.8 44.0 28.4 100

Labour supply: definitionsUS= Usual status, SS=Subsidiary status

Lfp1_usual=1 if US=31, 0 otherwise

Lfp2_usual=1 if US=31+41+51, 0 otherwise

Lfp3_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81, 0 otherwise

Lfp4_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81+11+12, 0 otherwise

Lfp5_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81+11+12+21, 0 otherwiseLfp6_usual=1 if US=31+41+51+81+11+12+21+93, 0 otherwise

Lfp1_subs=1 if US or SS =31, 0 otherwise

Lfp2_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51, 0 otherwise

Lfp3_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81, 0 otherwise

Lfp4_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81+11+12, 0 otherwise

Lfp5_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81+11+12+21, 0 otherwise

Lfp6_subs=1 if US or SS =31+41+51+81+11+12+21+93, 0 otherwise

LFP and Education: More drop in LFP

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

1983 1994 2005 2012

Illiterate

Upto Primary

Middle

Sec or High. Sec

Grad. or above

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Illiterate UptoPrimary

Middle Sec orHigh.Sec

Grad. orabove

1983

1994

2005

2012

An unchanged U-curve by education, but strong dropoff for secondary

and degree holders

A large literature has examined recent trends in rural

female labour force participation (RLFPR) in India.

There seems to be no consensus, however, on what

explains the recent decline in RLFPR.

Background of the Study

• One view stresses the role of education, with women in rural areas are nowpursuing higher education and are therefore simply not available for the labour force.

• A second view highlights a possible “income effect”. Arguing that householdincomes could have risen in rural areas due to higher wage levels which have takenthe pressure off women to seek distress employment in times of economic hardship(World Bank 2010; Himanshu 2011; Rangarajan 2011, Neff et al. 2012, Dubey, Olsen& Sen 2016).

• A third view argues that the decline in women’s LFPR is due to an overall decline inor absence of short and long term employment opportunities in rural areas (WorldBank 2010; Chowdhury 2011; Mazumdar and Neetha 2011, Dubey, Olsen & Sen2016).

• A fourth view argues that the decline of rural female LFPR could be due to culturalfactors and social constraints which might come to the fore with rising incomes orlimited employment opportunities (see Das 2006; Olsen and Mehta 2006; Chowdhury2011). It could even be that women’s nonwork status is a growing source ofhousehold dignity or honour (Olsen and Mehta, 2007) but the evidence does not castlight directly on that (Dubey, Olsen & Sen 2016).

Decline of rural female LFPR

• A plethora of micro studies provide detailed estimates of measurement failure. A few of these are cited below:

• In the 1970s, Jain and Chand found that 20 out of 104 females reported as non-workers in a West Bengal

village in the Census, were actually winnowing, threshing, parboiling or working as domestic servants for eight

to ten hours a day.

• Gail Omvedt found 239 women workers in one area where the census counted 38 and 444 women workers in

another area where the Census listed 9.

• Ratna Sudarshan’s work shows that while the 1991 census gave the Female Work Force Participation Rate

for Punjab as 4.4 percent, NCAER, during a probe, got 28.8 percent.

• Swapna Mukhopadhyay’s survey of 5,981 women workers in six cities found that the Labour Force

Participation Rate of women was four times greater than that stated in the Census.

• The invisibility of women’s work is shockingly clear from the following example. Prem Chowdhry refers to an

inquiry into dairy development in Ambala, which reported no female to be a worker in animal husbandry. In

fact even a cursory familiarity with agriculture shows, women are very clearly allied with animal husbandry,

from bringing in fodder, cutting chaff, preparing food mix for cattle, giving water and feed, bathing and cleaning

cattle, cleaning cattle sheds, treating sick cattle, making dung cakes, storing them, making compost etc.

Evidence from Micro Studies(Mehta, 2000)

• The definitions of RLFPR they construct are: a) participation in only wage

employment (narrow definition); b) participation in wage employment and self-

employment, and women looking for work (medium definition) and c) participation in

paid work (wage work and self-employment) and unpaid work – that is, unpaid

helpers and women involved in extra-domestic duties (wide definition). They then

examine the patterns in RLFPR across these three definitions and its correlates over

the period 1983-2011.

• They use to define labour most widely to include informal sector work, unpaid family

helpers, farming work, and extra domestic work (defined below), using the label LFP3

for wide labour.

• In between, LFP2 is familiar to western labour specialists, because it includes self-

employment of the respondent. Ambiguities around the definition of self-employment

have made this category under-report women’s remunerated market-related work.

The Study of Dubey, Olsen and SenThe Categorisation of Labour Force Participation

• In between narrow and wide, we define LFP2 as a medium measure of workparticipation. LFP2 is not meant as the perfect or ideal measure. It is meant tocapture a halfway point between the two useful extremes of measurement. LFP2omits the extradomestic work which some would call subsistence labour.

• One reason is that extradomestic work was defined by NSS to arbitrarily includemany activities undertaken by women and children, but the NSS ignored thereproductive work done by men, such as collecting firewood, boiling sugar, buildinghouses or walls, cooking, or child care, because men were considered breadwinnersa priori.

• Only women without a principle occupation were invited to state which of tenextradomestic tasks they had engaged in. The recall period was a year. Thecoverage was patchy. Questions were answered yes/no, not in terms of days worked.

• In LFP2, the medium measure of work, we include farming work and all other self-employment, if declared as self-employment, but we omit unpaid family helpers.

The Study of Dubey, Olsen and SenThe Categorisation of Labour Force Participation

Table 1: Rural India, Female Labour Force Participation,

Competing Definitions

% of Women 19831993-

94

2004-

05

2011-

12

Column

Percentag

e of

Workers,

1983

Column

Percentage

of Workers,

2011/2012

Salaried Work and

Employees Only1.50% 1.4 2 2.2 0.7 1.3

That + Casual Labour

(Narrow Def’n, LFP1)23.5 24 22.2 17.5 11.5 10.6

That plus those Unemployed 24 24.5 23.3 18.2 11.7 11

That plus those Self-

Employed (Medium Def’n,

LFP2)35.4 32.7 31.5 24.7 17.2 15

That plus those who worked

as “helper in household

enterprise”52.1 51.3 52.7 37.5 25.4 22.7

That plus extra-domestic

duties (EDD) (Wide Def’n,

LFP3)68.8 71.2 70.7 64.8 33.5 39.3

Total 100 100

For Narrow, medium and wide definition of labour see, Dubey, Amaresh; Olsen,

Table 1 shows female labour participation in rural

India according to various definitions (defined by

Dubey, Olsen & Sen 2016).

It shows that, except as per wide def’n of LFP3 the

female labour force participation in every category

has been decline over time (since 1983).

Only as per wide def’n that plus extra-domestic

duties of women the female labour force participation

has increased since 1983 that is 33.5 per cent to

39.3 per cent in the year 2011/12. This is the

concern of our present paper.

In our present paper we tried to examine the

economic role of this wide def’n female worker which

could be valued according to labour market.

For this purpose we apply the time use data. This

data have been collected around the clock (of the

previous working day) for both male and female

respondents in the study area.

The Study of Dubey, Olsen and SenThe Categorisation of Labour Force Participation

Gender equality is elemental for sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction.

Equitable approach to jobs in rural areas enable rural women to become active

economic performer of growth as money earner; despite of doing unpaid household

work as well.

Gender inequalities especially in rural employment subsist far and wide, indifferent to

the level of economic development in the country despite of different precedents of

social, cultural, religious and economic dynamics.

Some of them – such as the burden of unpaid work at home, lack of education and

dealing authority, and limited right of property - undoubtedly compose large gender

disparity.

On economic arena, gender bias in India is perceptible especially in the form of rural

wages.

On Gender Inequality

The following data in this respect are self explanatory

Gender gaps in rural wages in India

Sector Type of employmentWomen’s wage as %

of Men’s

Agriculture Daily Casual wage 69

Agriculture Daily Regular wage 79

Non-Agriculture Daily Casual wage 65

Non-Agriculture Daily Regular wage 57

The study conducted in the 15 villages of the north ruralIndia in the year 2015 confirms the unequal unpaid workstatus between men and women.

We observed that women are for more involved inunpaid economic activities (domestic activities) thanmen.

Applying the time use method on the basis of time usesurvey we found that on an average, women spent 9-10hour (9.3 hours) daily on categorized unpaid economicactivity and on other side men spent only 5-6 hours (5.95hours) for the same.

The Present Study

Economic and Non-economic activity

Table 2: Time use per day in hour of male and female in study area of economic

and non-economic activity

Economic activity Male Female

Crop farming and vegetable gardening 1.25 0.73

Livestock care 0.93 0.67

Fetching of fruits, hunting, collecting 0.01 0.04

Mining and rock quarrying, rock breaking 0.06 0.00

Construction Activities 0.89 0.01

Manufacturing Activities (beedi, garment etc.) 0.09 0.02

Trade and Business 0.31 0.08

Services 0.75 0.05

Grinding, flour, husking, or making spices 0.10 0.25

Cleaning 0.13 0.72

Washing and ironing cloths and utensils 0.02 1.37

Repairing the house or repair household 0.06 0.01

Cooking and serving 0.11 3.42

Getting firewood 0.04 0.14

Carrying water, fetching water 0.02 0.19

Childcare 0.10 0.66

Teaching one’s own children or giving tution 0.18 0.08

Caring for the sick people 0.02 0.06

Training, private or government (DWCRA 0.02 0.01

Other activities 0.85 0.78

Total 5.95 9.30

Economic activity,

5.95Non economic activity, 18.10

Male

Economic activity,

9.30Non economic activity, 14.70

Female

Economic and Non-economic activity

Table 3 reflects that male

invest 18.10 hour daily in

non –economic activities

while female invest only

14.70 for the same.

Female seems less social in

terms of participating in

social events , chatting or

visiting neighbor than their

counterparts female.

The table shows that male

enjoy more leisure than

Table 3: Time use per day in hour of male and female in study area

of economic and non-economic activity

Non-Economic activity Male Female

Sleep and rest 9.80 9.40

Eating and drinking 1.60 1.02

Personal washing, toilet, etc 1.50 1.51

Shopping 0.30 0.02

Travel 1.70 0.44

Studying 0.00 0.02

Participating in social events: wedding 0.10 0.05

Socialising, chatting, visiting neighbour 2.20 1.65

Games and hobbies 0.40 0.11

Reading 0.10 0.00

Watching television, video, internet etc, 0.20 0.28

Prayer 0.10 0.20

Total 18.10 14.70

Economic and Non-economic activity(Caste wise)

The graph shows that there are also caste wise differences in economic and non-economic

activities (in context of time use).

5.306.13 5.90

6.98

9.21 9.33 9.25 9.65

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.00

FC OBC SC ST FC OBC SC ST

MALE FEMALE

Economic activity18.70 17.86 18.10 17.02

14.79 14.67 14.75 14.35

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.00

FC OBC SC ST FC OBC SC ST

MALE FEMALE

Non economic activity

Economic and Non-economic activity(Religion wise)

Religion wise also there are gender inequality regarding economic and non economic activities (in context of time use).

6.06 5.94

9.57 9.35

0.00

2.004.00

6.008.00

10.00

12.00

Muslim Hindu Muslim Hindu

Male Female

Economic Activity17.94 18.06

15.74 14.67

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

Muslim Hindu Muslim Hindu

Male Female

Non-aconomic activity

Quantifying the Economic Activity

Quantifying the economic activities ( table 5) weobserved that women could get upto Rs. 8000 permonth ( for 26 days ) for the economic activities forwhich they are unpaid . This is more than malecounterpart.

Table 5: Estimated per day average remuneration of male and female in

various unpaid economic activity in the study area (in Rs.)

Economic activity Male Female

Crop farming and vegetable gardening 41.67 24.33

Livestock care 31 22.33

Fetching of fruits, hunting, collecting 0.33 1.33

Mining and rock quarrying, rock breakin 2 0

Construction Activities 29.67 0.33

Manufacturing Activities (beedi, garmen 3 0.67

Trade and Business 10.33 2.67

Services 25 1.67

Grinding, flour, husking, or making spi 3.33 8.33

Cleaning 4.33 24

Washing and ironing cloths and utensils 0.67 45.67

Repairing the house or repair household 2 0.33

Cooking and serving 3.67 114

Getting firewood 1.33 4.67

Carrying water, fetching water 0.67 6.33

Childcare 3.33 22

Teaching one’s own children or giving t 6 2.67

Caring for the sick people 0.67 2

Training, private or government (DWCRA 0.67 0.33

Other activities 28.33 26

Total 198.33 310based on average wage of prevailing wage rates in study area

198.33

310

0

200

400

Male Female

Per Day

5156.58

8060

0

5000

10000

Male Female

Per Month

Other Side of The Coin

The origin of gender inequality in Indian society is rather much

prominent in its male dominated social system whose typical social

structure and practices are not only men dominate, but also subjugate

and make the most of women. In fact, women’s oppression is a

longstanding cultural observable fact of Indian society.

‘Women are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are

children, they must be under the custody of their husband when married

and under the custody of her son in old age or as widows. In no

circumstances she should be allowed to assert herself independently’.

Other Side of The Coin

Uniquely, even today this perception exists in Indian society in reality. At least

our primary data survey results revealed this. The societal configuration

accountable for the notion that men are intrinsically the means of survival and

women are the custodians, disseminated over years. Even in the 21st century,

the outlook that working women are unfit house wives and are not capable to

balance professional work and family life, is dominant. It has been often

deduced that the upholding of gender typecast manifest sizeable dynamic in

hindering women’s growth in the professional pitch.

Likewise, women who do choose to stray from the conventional path are often

faced with challenges of a varied nature within the workplace/educational

institute/political party etc. When a few are able to persevere and make it to top-

notch positions, these women are faced with the work-life balance dilemma,

reinforced by society and gender norms.

Bangladesh part of the work: time-use and Interview data

Comparison of the Time-use in 2 Categories

(MINUTES PER DAY)

India Bangladesh COMMENTS

Women Round 1 Crop work 40 min

Livestock work 40

minutes

Crop work 70

minutes

Livestock work 60

minutes

Women’s work in

this area is

substantial

Men Round 1 Crop work 60

minutes

Livestock work 40

minutes

Crop work 160

minutes

Livestock work 12

minutes

Women dominate

livestock work of

feeding, milking,

watering the

animals

Qualitative Data From

Bangladesh

45 semi-structured interviews

Example of a mother of 5 married children, who says her work is so diverse, unsure where to start in describing the daily work tasks. She lists many tasks.

When interviews start, a ‘Discipline’ by husband or father is mentioned, but often later they expand on the confident-woman as an important iconic figure. The reality is that husband/wife negotiate a lot.

Qualitative Data From

Bangladesh

Another example

The very poor wife of an agricultural casual workers, who married at age 12 and whose children are now grown, has 3 cows 2 goats, lives on a ‘CHAR’ (island in a river, no electricity nor road). She raises animals, ‘When my husband cannot make ends meet, I use this [chickens] to make ends meet..ducks…I have made a savings deposit of 600 taka [£6], I maintain that…If my children want anything, I give it them. [You are saving money?] Yes, otherwise my sons tell me I have nothing. My daughter in law will also say I have nothing.’

Layers of interpretation

1. breadwinner model of household is dominant.

2. The woman constructs her dignity.

3. They do this in diverse ways, here via both

cash savings and via holding animals as liquid

mobile assets.

4. the construction of joint dignity and female

honour is very important to poor women. WORK

predominates in the interview materials as a

MEANS to dignity.

Conclusion

More than in any other area, it is in the recording of the work

done by women that serious inaccuracies and measurement

failures occur.

As a result, their participation in the economy is undermined

and seems as disguised exclusion from the mainstream of the

economy.

Census after Census, women's contribution has been rendered

invisible by failing to quantify their work inputs, especially in

agriculture and the informal sector.

The present study suggests that the value of unpaid work

performed by the rural women may be quantified and valued.

Conclusion (continued…)

Rural women continue to be treated as if they contribute

nothing of value to society or the nation.

Though we experienced that, women’s lives have changed

rapidly over time. Social, economic and legislative

improvements and scientific advancements have allowed

women to gain greater control over their lives.

But mostly these experiences reflect only in the urban areas.

Unless these trends reach the bottom strata of the society

especially in the rural areas, attaining the motive of gender

equality and inclusive growth remains an impossible vision.

Hence we suggest that.....

Adequate recognition should be made of the unpaid works of the rural women to increase their self-esteem and to improve their image in the family and society at large.

Also access to and control over production and market resources such as access to training, credit, employment, technical skills, entrepreneurship etc, by women should be increased while recognising that the goal is not to burden women with two full time jobs.

We should also take all appropriate measures to ensure that care responsibilities are equally shared by men and women.

Thank you