See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289195229

Missing labour force: An explanation

Article  in  Economic and Political Weekly · September 2012

CITATIONS READS
59 685

1 author:

Indira Hirway
Centre For Development Alternatives
59 PUBLICATIONS   780 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

It is an independent paper View project

it is a paper published in Unpaid Work and the Economy: Gender, Time Use and Poverty in the Global South (2010), Edited by Rania Antonopoulos and Indira Hirway,
Palgrave Mcmilan, Publishers, UK. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Indira Hirway on 04 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Missing Labour Force
An Explanation
Indira Hirway
Trends in employment and unemployment in India, as
presented by the quinquennial surveys of the National
Sample Survey Office for the past decades, have raised
many questions for which there are no easy answers.
This paper attempts to address some missing links. With
the help of time use statistics, it argues that the missing
labour force does not imply withdrawal of women (and
maybe some men) from the labour market. A large part
of the missing labour is missing only from the NSSO data
but is very much there in the labour force – though a
small part may be due to withdrawal. It appears
“missing” because of the inability of the NSSO surveys to
capture it adequately. This “non-missing labour force”
has important implications for the employment and
labour policy in the country. The paper also argues that
time use statistics has the potential of overcoming some
weaknesses of the NSSO as well as of adding new
information on the labour force.
Indira Hirway (Indira.hirway@cfda.ac.in) is with the Centre
for Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37
T
rends in employment and unemployment in India, as
presented by the quinquennial surveys of the National
Sample Survey Office (NSSO) for the past decades, have
raised a big debate. This is because these trends, particularly
after the results of the 2009-10 survey (NSSO 2010), have raised
many questions for which there are no easy answers. Several
scholars have thrown useful light on the trends by providing
answers to the questions (Kannan and Raveendran 2012;
Rangarajan et al 2011; Himanshu 2011; Chandrasekhar and
Ghosh 2011; Choudhry 2011; Anant and Mehta 2011; EPW 2011);
however there are still some missing links.
This paper attempts to address these missing links. The
paper is divided into two sections: Section 1 presents the
different aspects of the ongoing debate, while Section 2
attempts to answer some questions related to the missing
workforce and labour force.
1 The Debate
The major questions arising from the trends in employment
and unemployment are as follows:
• Very low rate of growth of employment: The 2009-10 report
of the NSSO has reported a very low rate of growth of employ-
ment (0.5% per year) during the period 2004-05 – 2009-10
in spite of 8.6% of growth of gross domestic product (GDP)
during this period.
• Absolute decline in unemployment: In spite of the low rate of
growth of employment and 1.44% per year rate of growth of
population during the period 2004-05 – 2009-10, there has
been an absolute decline in unemployment, from 11.15 million
in 2004-05 to 9.7 million in 2009-10.
• Widely fluctuating workforce in the economy: The rate of
growth of workforce was around 1% per year during 1993-94
– 1999-2000; it rose to 2.85% per year during 1999-2000 –
2004-05; and again crashed to 0.5% per year during 2004-05
– 2009-10. These wide fluctuations appear to be puzzling.
One immediate reaction, particularly after the results of
2009-10, was that the data was not reliable. It was argued that
NSSO statistics are losing their quality because of its fieldworkers,
many of whom are now hired on contract and lack adequate
training and experience required to collect quality data. How-
ever, as pointed by an EPW editorial, the trends called for a
detailed and careful investigation. There is no point in shooting
the messenger because the message is not palatable (EPW 2011).
Several explanations have emerged gradually to explain the
peculiar behaviour of these data. One set of explanations is that
67
SPECIAL ARTICLE
the trends indicate an overall jobless growth. After the results
of the 2009-10 survey were out, some scholars described the
results as indicating “dramatic crash of employment” (Chan-
drasekhar and Ghosh 2011). It is argued that the highly capital-
intensive growth of the economy has failed to create adequate
employment opportunities in spite of rapid growth of GDP.
Himanshu (2011) presents a useful explanation for the
simultaneous existence of low growth of employment and
declining unemployment as well as for widely fluctuating
labour force in the economy. He recommends a long-term anal-
ysis of the trends in employment and unemployment to get a
better understanding of the fluctuations in the data. His long-
term analysis shows that changes in employment pattern and
workforce structure in the past decade and a half have been
sluggish and do not conform to the standard employment-out-
put relationship. According to him, large fluctuations after
1993-94 appear to be a result of the movements in and out of
labour force of substantial sections of the population, which are
vulnerable and informal. Participation in the labour force by
these sections is not out of choice, but it is due to poverty. These
vulnerable sections include women, children and the elderly
who move into the labour market during crisis and move out
when conditions are better. The rise and fall of employment
have followed relatively bad and good periods respectively.
That is, when the preceding period of an NSSO round has been
relatively good, workers have withdrawn from the labour mar-
ket; and when the period has been bad many non-workers have
entered the labour market as a coping strategy and taken up
whatever jobs – including self-employment – were available.
This indicates that productive jobs are not increasing fast
enough in the economy. As the focus of economic growth is on
the organised sector, the unorganised sector is neglected, and a
class of workers is created who are not benefited by growth and
who move in and out of the labour market. The 2.8% growth of
employment between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 was largely due to
increase in distress employment, while the crash in employment in
2000-10 was due to a decline in distress from the earlier period.
These trends therefore raise a serious question about the
ability of the economic growth of the Indian economy to offer
sustained employment to its labour force.
Some scholars, however, have interpreted the trends as an
indicator of several positive developments in the economy
(Rangarajan et al 2011). It is argued by C Rangarajan and his
colleagues that the decline in unemployment between 2004-05
and 2009-10 indicates a decline in the labour force and with-
drawal of several sections of workers from the labour market.
They observe that (i) 44% of the withdrawal is for education
(with the expansion of education in the economy); (ii) 31% of
the withdrawal, mainly of women, is to join domestic activi-
ties; (iii) 15% is from 0-4 children; and (iv) 10% withdrawal is
by disabled persons, pensioners and retired persons.
They argue that with the implementation of Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan and Right to Education Act, education has expanded
among young children and youths, encouraging them to with-
draw from the labour market. Also, with the improvement in
wages and income levels, there are not many takers of low paying
68
jobs. Women particularly have withdrawn from the labour market
due to rising incomes to join domestic activities such as weaving,
tailoring, gathering free goods, domestic services, etc. Explaining
why this withdrawal has taken place in spite of the drought in
2009-10 (usually distress employment increases during droughts),
they argue that agriculture in India has become drought resil-
ient at least in incomes. Increase in agricultural wages also has
helped this withdrawal of women from the labour market.
Though they observe that withdrawal of women needs to be
investigated further, they see progress in structural transfor-
mation in employment in 2009-10. The decline in the share of
agricultural workforce in the total workforce and the increase
in the share of workforce in non-agriculture indicates a posi-
tive structural transformation (Lewisian kind of structural
change) of the Indian economy.
Kannan and Raveendran (2012) however have taken the
argument of Himanshu further by creating a careful profile of the
“missing” labour force. With the help of the statistics on expan-
sion of education of men and women, they argue that this ex-
pansion does not explain adequately the fall in the labour force,
particularly of women. Of the total decline in the female labour
force (28.38 million) during 2004-05 – 2009-10, 83% decline
cannot be explained by expansion of women’s education. The fact
that (i) the withdrawal of women from the labour force is more
in rural areas than in urban areas and (ii) the withdrawal is from
all age groups (the maximum withdrawal is in the 30-34 age
group) indicates that there are other reasons, other than expan-
sion of women’s education, responsible for women’s withdrawal.
They show that there is a significant increase in women
engaged in activities “1992” and “1993” in 2009-10. The increase
is of 29.10 million against the withdrawal of 28.14 million during
2004-05 – 2009-10. They therefore conclude that 28.16 million
women who ought to be in the labour force are compelled to
confine themselves in “1992” and “1993” activities, that is,
within the four walls of their dwellings. They show that an
overwhelming proportion of women who dropped out of the
labour force are from rural areas, belonging to economically
poor households. Only a small portion of upper class women
withdrew due to high incomes. That is, the withdrawal is not
just social orthodoxy; it indicates lack of generation of adequate
productive employment in the economy. This also shows that the
impact of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
(NREGS) has been limited in the economy including women.
Questions about Capability of Growth
The trends in employment and unemployment in the past dec-
ade and a half thus raise a serious question about the capability
of the growth of GDP in the country to create adequate gainful
employment opportunities for the labour force in the economy.
The target of creating 50 million productive employment
opportunities in the economy has turned out to be a big bluff.
To conclude, the above presentations have thrown very use-
ful light on the trends in employment and unemployment in India.
The presentations by Himanshu and by Kannan and Raveendran
have particularly explained the puzzling behaviour of work-
force/labour force with a convincing database.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

However, a few questions arise from the above debate:
First, is it feasible that a large chunk of persons move in and
out of the workforce and labour force so frequently? That is,
do they change their decision to be in and out of the labour
market so frequently, when the incidence of poverty is
around 40%? Is it feasible that the employment grew at 2.8%
rate of growth during 1999-2000 – 2004-05 and in the next
five years the rate crashed to 0.5% per year? Or do these
puzzling trends indicate the inability of the NSSO quinquen-
nial surveys to capture the real picture of employment and
unemployment in the country?
Another related question is about the very low workforce
participation of women in the economy. Is it feasible that 85% of
rural women and 89% of urban women (both above five years)
are not engaged in “economic activities” when the incidence of
poverty is as high as 40%? That is, is it a reality that only 15% of
women in rural areas and 11% of urban women (above five years)
are participating in economic activities? Many scholars have
doubted the capability of labour force surveys including NSSO
surveys to estimate workforce and particularly female labour
force accurately (Charmes 2004, 2011; Hirway 2002; Hirway
and Jose 2011; Jain 2008). The data seem to confirm this doubt.
2 Exploring Answers
‘1992’ and ‘1993’ Categories
Under NSSO surveys, those outside the labour force are classified
under the categories 91 (attended education institutions);
92 (attended domestic duties only); 93 (attended domestic
duties and were also engaged in (a) free collection of goods
such as vegetables, roots, firewood, cattle feed, etc, and
(b) sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc); 94 (rentiers, pensioners,
remittances recipients, etc,); 95 (not able to work due to disa-
bility); 97 others (beggars, prostitutes); 98 (did not work due
to sickness); and 99 (children 0-4). All these categories of per-
sons are treated as “non-workers”.
It is important to note that persons engaged in “1993” are
treated as non-workers in spite of the fact that they are engaged
in economic activities covered under the production boundary
of the United Nations-System of National Accounts (UN-SNA)
(UN 1993, 2008) because their number is found to be negli-
gible. The question arises whether those engaged in “1993” are
really negligible in number or the employment and unemploy-
ment surveys of the NSSO are not able to capture their strength
correctly. As it is argued later, according to time use surveys,
this number is much bigger. One cannot therefore treat per-
sons engaged in “1993” as non-workers. As we shall see, it is
important to distinguish between non-workers and workers
for the purpose of understanding the labour market and for
designing employment policies.
Follow-up Questions and Estimation of Workforce
In quinquennial surveys, follow-up questions are asked to those
who report domestic duties (92 and 93) as their principal usual
status whether they pursued certain specified activities more
or less regularly for their own household consumption along
Economic & Political Weekly EPW SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37
SPECIAL ARTICLE
with their domestic duties. These questions were put up to as-
certain their level of participation in these specified economic
activities which provide economic benefits to their households.1
Data are also collected on whether such persons are willing to
accept work on household premises, and if yes, the nature of the
work acceptable to them and what type of assistance they need.
These specified activities can be grouped into three broad
categories:
• Activities Related to Agricultural Production: These activities
include maintenance of kitchen garden, orchards, etc; work on
household poultry, dairy, etc; free collection of agricultural
products like fish, vegetables, small game as well as firewood,
cattle feed for own household.
• Processing of Primary Products: This category includes
processing of primary products, such as husking of paddy,
grinding of foodgrains, preparation of gur, preservation of
fish, meat, etc, for own consumption.
• Other Activities for Own Consumption: This category
includes other activities for economic benefits of one’s own
household, such as making baskets and mats; preparation of
cow dung cakes; sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc; free tutoring
of own/others’ children, bringing water from outside house-
hold premises and outside the village (for rural areas), etc.
The categories two and three are not considered economic
activities in the NSSO employment-unemployment surveys.
That is, these categories are not covered under the purview of
the Indian SNA (ISNA) though UN-SNA does include them in its
production boundary. Participation in category 1 activities is
observed to be negligible and therefore the persons engaged in
category 1 activities are treated as non-workers.
This treatment of the three categories raises a question: why
are these three categories of activities not included in ISNA
when they are a part and parcel of UN-SNA? The reason given
is that the participation in these activities by persons very
marginal. This logic is not valid, first, because the follow-up
questions are asked only to one category of non-workers who
are engaged in activities “1992” and “1993”. If, however, other
categories of non-workers such as students (91), retired persons,
pensioners and remittance recipients (94), persons not able to
work (as principal status) due to disability (95) or beggars
and prostitutes (97) are also asked these questions, they may
report that they participate in any of the activities of the three
categories. It is possible that these non-workers do help in
their family business or in other unpaid SNA work. Second,
participation per se is not important, as the time spent on
these activities is more important. It is necessary therefore to
estimate the participation not only by estimating their number
but also the time spent by them on these activities. And, finally,
it is also possible that NSSO is not able to collect realistic data
on participation of these persons (with domestic duties as
principal status) in the three categories of activities.
The Indian time use survey (GoI 2000), 1998-99, the only
official time use survey conducted so far in India, for example,
shows that 6.53% of men and 24.18% of women participate in
only one of the unpaid SNA activities, namely, collection of free
goods such as fetching water, collection of fruits, vegetables,
69
SPECIAL ARTICLE
fuelwood/twigs, collection of raw material for crafts, collec-
tion of fodder, collection of minor forest produce like bamboo,
leaves, etc, and they (participants) spend 10.48 and 9.62 hours
weekly, respectively. This does not include the other unpaid
SNA activities like unpaid family work or production of goods
for self-consumption. As Table 1 shows, though participation of
men is less, the participant men spend marginally more time
on these activities.
Table 1: Participation and Time Spent by Men and Women on Collection
of Free Goods
Male Female
Rural Participant rate 8.03 28.2
Weekly time spent (hours) 10.99 10.25
Urban Participant rate 3.12 14.92
Weekly time spent (hours) 4.42 5.94
Total Participant rate 6.53 24.18
Weekly time spent (hours) 9.48 9.62
Source: GoI (2000).
One can say that the participation as well as time spent by
men and women on all the three categories put together is
likely to be significant. It cannot be termed as negligible.
Ahead we compare the work participation rate (WPR) of men
and women under the time use survey and under NSSO.
SNA and Non-SNA Work/Workers
Why is it important to put these persons engaged in “1993”
and in the three categories under the workforce or SNA – and
not in non-SNA or in “non-worker” category? There are several
reasons for this: to start with, these workers are offering them-
selves as workers in the labour market and they do not want to
be restricted to domestic services or other non-worker status.
They are not necessarily confined to the four walls of their
home (though some of them do work at home and may be
interested in taking up home-based SNA work), as they go out
to collect free goods for their own consumption or for eco-
nomic activities like animal husbandry, craft, etc. Many of
them are in these activities because they have no choice, no
access to other more productive activities in the economy.
These workers cannot be clubbed with those engaged in
domestic duties, as they have shown their availability in non-
domestic activities in the labour market. They need to be cov-
ered under policies pertaining to labour and employment so
that their labour is used productively in the labour market.
Second, when covered under SNA, these low productivity
activities – which are frequently drudgery – will be covered
under the purview of labour market policies. This work and
workers will claim the attention of policymakers as well as
funds from the national exchequer for the improvement of
their productivity and well-being. This sector, the unpaid
SNA, will be treated as a lagging sector in the economy where
workers are not able to give their best in the labour market.
Their participation in unpaid SNA implies that they need skill
upgradation and improved quality of participation.
In short, the missing labour force is this labour force in
informal and subsistence workforce that cannot be captured
by the NSSO surveys. The NSSO concepts and methods are not
able to capture this unpaid SNA work, which consists of
70
(i) unpaid family work, (ii) free collection of goods of different
kinds, and (iii) household production for self-consumption.
The NSSO is not able to capture the first kind adequately though
ISNA includes them in SNA; and though the second and third
are a part of UN-SNA (UN 1993, 2008), they are excluded on the
ground that the participation in these activities is negligible.
The time use survey data show that neither the participation
nor the time spent on these activities is negligible. These must
be treated as SNA activities.
An important implication of this is that a large chunk of the
Total
labour force does not move in and out of the labour force, but it
43.74
moves in and out of the low productivity distress work that
10.64
8.78
they take up as a coping strategy.
5.22 Our explanation also agrees that the high growth in the past
15.04 two decades has not treated employment well.
10.04
Time Use Survey for Improved Estimates
and Better Understanding
It will not be out of place here to mention the major findings of
our study that compares workforce estimates (current weekly
status) under the NSSO (1999-2000) and weekly estimates of
the workforce under time use survey (1998-99) (Hirway and
Jose 2011).2
The study shows that the WPRs of both men and women in
rural as well as urban areas are higher under the time use sur-
vey than under the NSSO. The time use survey-based rates are
higher not only with a wider concept of SNA, but also with a
narrow and comparable concept of SNA used under the NSSO.
The two sets of comparable WPR also show that (i) the gender
gaps in WPR are much less under the time use survey; (ii) the
interstate variations in women’s WPR also are much lower under
time use surveys; and (iii) the diversification of the workforce
(in terms of percentage of workers in the non-primary sectors)
is less under the time use survey than what is presented by the
NSSO. The last is due to considerable underestimation of the
workforce in the primary sector (than in the non-primary sectors)
under the NSSO (refer to the Appendix on p 72).
Our analysis also provides additional information on the
characteristics of the workforce: (i) the time spent on work by
workers per day and per week that measures the intensity of
work; (ii) multiple jobs (more than two, three or even five jobs)
performed by different sections of the workforce; and (iii) fi-
nally, the time use survey data also show that women and chil-
dren are predominant in the collection of free goods, animal
grazing, and other subsistence work (refer to the Appendix).
There are several reasons why time use surveys provide
improved information on the workforce. First, time use sur-
veys collect comprehensive information on how people spend
their time on different activities without missing any activity.
As a result, the time use survey is able to capture scattered,
sporadic and irregular informal work in a comprehensive
manner. This work is likely to be missed out under NSSO sur-
veys. Second, a major advantage of time use surveys over NSSO
surveys is that they do not ask any direct question to respond-
ents whether they are “workers” or “non-workers”. Whether
an activity is economic or not is determined neither by the
SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

respondent nor by the investigator while collecting the infor-
mation. This is determined, after collecting comprehensive
information on how people spend their time, while coding and
classifying the activities. As a result, the bias of the respondent
(mainly women) or of the investigator is not likely to affect the
data adversely.
In addition, a time use survey can capture multiple jobs easily.
The NSSO surveys capture one subsidiary activity or maybe two.
In a time use survey, however, one can capture three, four or
even five jobs, as all the scattered work is collected comprehen-
sively. This is important for the poor, as they are observed to be
performing several economic activities to survive.3 Also, the
time use survey captures simultaneous activities, that is, the
activities carried out simultaneously. For example, home-based
work and childcare. Such work is frequently observed in the
case of women and particularly poor women. The time use
survey can capture this work by using a suitable context
variable, while this work is missed out by the NSSO.
In short, a time use survey has the potential of overcoming
some weaknesses of the NSSO on the one hand and of adding
new information on the workforce on the other. It is capable of
supplementing and complementing information collected by
NSSO surveys.
Recent Developments in India
Looking at the importance of time use surveys in capturing
workforce comprehensively, particularly in the informal and
subsistence sectors, it is now recognised that such surveys can
complement and supplement the employment and unemploy-
ment surveys undertaken by the NSSO. An expert group
has therefore been set up by the Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation (MoSPI) to explore the feasibility
of conducting an all-India time use survey.4
Concluding Observations
One major conclusion is that the missing labour force is not
really missing – it is not moving out of the labour market – at
least a majority is not – though a small part may be due to
withdrawal. They move to sectors which are “difficult to meas-
ure” by NSSO surveys. That is, this “missing labour force” moves
to low productivity informal work and subsistence work,
within the labour market, as a coping strategy. Their participa-
tion and the time spent by them on these activities are not neg-
ligible, if proper methods for data collection are used. This
“non-missing labour force” needs to be covered under employ-
ment policies, as they are a part of the labour market. They
cannot be treated as persons engaged in domestic duties.
In fact, the NSSO generally underestimates those workers who
are working in scattered, sporadic and irregular informal work,
those engaged in self-employment activities for survival, and
those engaged in free collection of goods or in manufacturing
goods for self-consumption. As a result, the workforce and la-
bour force has been underestimated in the past rounds also.
This recent decline clearly indicates worsening of the situation.
The rapid economic growth has failed miserably to create ade-
quate employment opportunities in the Indian economy.
The paper also argues that time use statistics have the potential
of overcoming some weaknesses of the NSSO as well as of add-
ing new information on the labour force. Time use surveys are
capable of supplementing and complementing information col-
lected by NSSO surveys. The recent first steps taken by the MoSPI
in promoting time use surveys are therefore most welcome.

Notes
1 The term “Economic Activities” is used here
as per the NSSO. It is important however
to recognise non-SNA activities of women
also as economic activities, as these activities
are also a part of the broader concept of
“Economy”. But we do not want to get into this
debate here.
2 Weekly estimates of WPR under time use
survey and WPR under “Current Weekly Status”
of NSSO are comparable. See for details
Hirway and Jose (2011).
3 For example, a rural woman may take care of
milch animals in the morning, collect fuel-
wood and fodder thereafter, and work as hired
labour on a farm in the afternoon.
4 Recently, the MoSPI has appointed an expert com-
mittee under the chairmanship of S R Hashim
to conduct an all-India time use survey.
References
Anant, T C A and Rajiv Mehta (2011): “Has Employ-
ment Fallen in India?”, Wall Street Journal,
July.
Chandrasekhar, C P and J Ghosh (2011): “Latest
Employment Trends from the NSSO”, Business
Life, 12 July.
Charmes, Jacques (2004): “Data Collection on the
Informal Sector: A Review of Concepts and
Methods Used since the Adoption of an Inter-
national Definition of Informal Sector”, paper
presented at the meeting of the Delhi Group on
Informal Sector Statistics, Park Hotel,
Connaught Place, New Delhi, 6-8 April 2011.
– (2011): “Understanding Informal Sector
Employ ment Using Time Use Statistics”, paper
presented at the International Workshop on
“Towards Harmonisation of Time Use Surveys
at the Global Level with Special Reference to
Developing Countries”, Government of India,
UN Women and Centre for Development Alter-
natives, 6-8 April.
Choudhry, S (2011): “Employment in India: What
Does the Latest Data Show?”, Economic & Poli-
tical Weekly, 46(32): 23-26.
Government of India (2000): Report of the Time Use
Survey, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Government of India, New
Delhi.
Economic & Political Weekly (2011): “Don’t Shoot
the Messenger”, Editorial, Economic & Political
Weekly, 46(28).
Himanshu (2011): “Employment Trends in India: A
Re-examination”, Economic & Political Weekly,
46(37): 43-59.
Hirway, Indira (2002): “Employment and Unem-
ployment in the 1990s: How Good Are the NSS
Data?”, Economic & Political Weekly, 37(21):
2027-36.
Hirway, Indira and Sunny Jose (2011): “Under-
standing Women’s Work Using Time Use Statis-
tics: The Case of India”, Feminist Economics,
17(4): 67-92.
Jain, Devaki (2008): “Integrating Unpaid Work into
Macroeconomics: Some Indian Experiences”,
in Report of the International Seminar on
Towards Mainstreaming Time Use Surveys in
National Statistical System in India, pp 168-87,
Ministry of Women and Child Development,
Government of India, New Delhi.
Kannan, K P and G Raveendran (2012): “Counting
and Profiling the Missing Labour Force”,
Economic & Political Weekly, 47(6): 43-59.
National Sample Survey Organisation (2000): Em-
ployment and Unemployment in India, July
1999-June 2000, NSS 55th Round, Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementation,
Government of India, New Delhi.
– (2010): Employment and Unemployment in
India, July 2009-June 2010, Ministry of Statis-
tics and Programme Implementation, Govern-
ment of India, New Delhi.
Rangarajan, C, Padma Iyer Kaul and Seema (2011):
“Where Is the Missing Labour Force?”, Econom-
ic & Political Weekly, XLVII(39): 68-72.
Saha, Vaskar (2003): “Estimation of Workforce
Using Time Use Statistics” in Proceedings of the
Seminar on Applications of Time Use Statistics,
Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics
and Programme Implementation, Government
of India and UNIFEM, New Delhi.
United Nations (UN) (1993): Systems of National
Accounts, World Bank, International Monetary
Fund, Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development, New York.
– (2008): Systems of National Accounts, World
Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organisa-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment, New York.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37 71
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

Appendix
Based on Our Analysis of Time Use Survey Based (1998-99) and NSSO Based (1999-2000) Statistics on Workforce and Labour Force
Table 1: Estimated WPR from NSSO and Time Use Survey (with comparable concepts of ‘work’)
States NSSO 1999-2000 TUS 1998-99 NSSO 1999-2000 TUS 1998-99
Rural Rural Urban Urban
Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person
Haryana 46.2 17.7 32.8 58.7 61.47 59.9 50.2 10.0 31.3 54.5 39.08 47.6
Madhya Pradesh 51.2 30.7 41.3 61.8 54.92 58.6 47.3 12.1 30.5 57.5 30.68 44.9
Gujarat 57.1 35.5 46.4 63.4 58.48 61.1 52.9 12.5 33.6 56.9 25.78 42.3
Orissa 52.7 23.3 37.9 61.7 58.34 60.0 45.7 11.6 29.3 58.4 30.97 45.8
Tamil Nadu 56.6 38.1 47.4 68.4 60.62 64.5 55.2 20.1 38.1 63.8 34.21 48.9
Meghalaya 55.6 42.0 48.7 58.6 59.35 58.9 39.3 19.7 29.7 53.8 35.06 43.8
Combined states 51.0 25.3 38.4 63.3 58.2 60.8 50.9 12.8 32.7 59.3 30.89 45.67
Sources: NSSO (2000), Saha (2003).

Table 2: Gender Gap in WPRs in India under Time Use Survey and NSSO
States TUS 1998-99 NSSO 1999-2000* Census 2001
Male Female Gap Male Female Gap Male Female Gap
Haryana 57.98 57.59 0.39 47.19 15.8 31.39 50.49 27.31 23.18
Meghalaya 57.77 55.05 2.72 52.57 37.85 14.72 47.76 35.02 12.74
Orissa 61.02 53.68 7.34 51.76 21.73 30.03 52.75 24.62 28.13
Tamil Nadu 66.76 51.04 15.72 56.12 31.95 24.17 58.06 31.32 26.74
Madhya Pradesh 60.99 50.26 10.73 50.3 26.39 23.91 51.62 33.1 18.52
Gujarat 60.96 46.55 14.41 55.65 27.57 28.08 55.02 28.03 26.99
Combined states/all India 62.16 50.75 11.41 50.97 22.09 28.88 51.93 25.68 26.25
Coeff of variation 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.41 0.1 0.21
Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99), NSSO (1999-2000) and Census of Population (2001).

Table 3: Percentage Distributions of Workers under Time Use Survey Figure 2: NSSO and Time Use Survey Based WPRs by Age Groups: Female
(1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000) by Industrial Categories 100
Industrial Category Time Use Survey (1998-99) NSSO (1999-2000) TUS
Men Women Person Men Women Person 80
Primary 56.13 77.45 66.00 47.00 70.00 53.80
60
Secondary 15.11 9.97 12.00 20.20 13.50 18.40
Territory 28.75 12.59 22.00 32.80 16.50 27.80 NSSO
40
Source: Hirway and Jose (2011) based on time use survey (1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000).
20
Table 4: Number of SNA Activities Performed by Men and Women (Time Use
Survey 1998-99) 0
5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and
States Men Women
above
1 2 3-5 >5 1 2 3-5 >5 Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000).
Haryana 10.78 45.69 38.55 4.99 17.97 19.3 42.51 20.22
Madhya Pradesh 8.94 40.34 45.7 5.02 25.66 37.09 34.53 2.72 Figure 3: NSSO and Time Use Survey Based WPRs by Age Groups: Male + Female
Gujarat 13.59 55.03 28.73 2.66 23.58 29.4 39.74 7.28 100 TUS
Orissa 26.59 45 27.6 0.81 32.81 34.42 32.18 0.6
80
Tamil Nadu 17.27 56.13 24.77 1.83 36.76 34.25 27.59 1.4
Meghalaya 8.5 25.82 61.27 4.41 23.05 28.93 43.47 4.55 60
Combined 15.17 49 32.89 2.94 28.85 30.71 35.06 5.37 NSSO
Sources: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99). 40

20
Figure 1: NSSO and Time Use Survey Based WPRs by Age Groups: Male
120 0
TUS 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and
100 above
Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99) and NSSO (1999-2000).
80

60
NSSO
40

20
available at
0
Uniquality
5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and 83, Janapath, Bapujee Bazar
above Bhubaneshwar 751 009, Orissa
Source: Hirway and Jose (2011), based on time use survey (1998-99), GoI (2000) and NSSO
(1999-2000), NSSO (2000). Ph: 2530064, 2530024

72 SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 vol xlvii no 37 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

View publication stats