1. K. Sundaram Delhi School of Economics University of Delhi India GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY INTER-RELATIONS GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY INTER-RELATIONS Some results from India

2. I. THE EMPLOYMENT-POVERTY INTERFACE Results from Probit Analysis: F POVERTY-REDUCING EFFECTS OF HIGHER EARNER-STRENGTH (WPR) IN THE HOUSEHOLD AND OF LARGER NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN THE WEEK F CETERIS PARIBUS, HIGHER THE RATIO OF FEMALE WORKERS IN TOTAL WORKERS IN THE HOUSEHOLD, THE HIGHER IS THE PROBABILITY OF THE HOUSEHOLD BEING POOR

3. POVERTY-DRIVEN WORK-PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN IN POOR HOUSEHOLDS F IN POOR HOUSEHOLDS FEMALE WORKER- POPULATION RATIO SAME OR HIGHER THAN IN NON-POOR HOUSEHOLDS, DESPITE: –Higher child-dependency burden –Higher child-woman ratio

4. Table 1: Child-Dependency and Child-Woman Ratios and Female Worker-Population Ratios in Poor and Non-Poor Households by Rural-Urban Location: All-India, 1999-2000 CDRs, CWRs and FWPRs

5. IS UNDEREMPLOYMENT THE PROBLEM? F 75 PERCENT OF RURAL WORKERS IN POOR HOUSEHOLDS WERE ‘AT WORK’ FOR 300 OR MORE DAYS IN THE YEAR AND ARE UNEMPLOYED FOR 12-DAYS IN THE YEAR F EVEN CASUAL LABOURERS IN AGRICULTURE (WITH ACCOUNT FOR 25 PERCENT OF THE WORKING POOR) WORK FOR 272 DAYS IN THE YEAR. THEY ARE UNEMPLOYED FOR 39 DAYS IN THE YEAR F IN RESPECT OF EACH AND ALL THE CATEGORY OF WORKERS, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN THE YEAR BY THE WORKERS IN POOR & NON- POOR HOUSEHOLDS IS QUITE SMALL: ONLY 2 DAYS FOR CASUAL LABOURERS IN AGRICULTURE

6. Table 2: Average Number of Days at Work and Unemployment – During the Year of Workers in Poor and Non-Poor Households by Broad Activity-Status in Rural Areas: All-India, 1999-2000

7. II. GROWTH-EMPLOYMENT INTER-FACE Focus on Employment Quality:. Focus on Employment Quality: F EMPLOYMENT-ELASTICITY & GROWTH IN LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY F PRODUCTIVITY-GROWTH: BASIS FOR SUSTAINABLE RISE IN REAL WAGES IN A MARKET ECONOMY F LOW RATHER THAN HIGH EMPLOYMENT ELASTICITY IN INDIVIDUAL SECTORS REQUIRED. F LABOUR ABSORPTION THROUGH FASTER GROWTH

8. II.GROWTH-EMPLOYMENT INTER-FACE ( Contd...) Assessing Employment Quality: F PROBLEM IN RESPECT OF SELF EMPLOYMENT F LOCATION IN NON-POOR HOUSEHOLDS AS AN INDICATOR OF GOOD QUALITY EMPLOYMENT F SHIFT OF FOCUS ALTERS ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN INDIA IN THE 1990S

9. Table 3: Average Annual Increments in Self- Employed Work Force: 1993-94 – 1999-2000

10. A MEASURE OF (EX-POST) INTEGRABILITY THE MEASURE : PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN POVERTY INDICATOR(S) FOR THE REFERENCE GROUP RELATIVE TO THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE ITN THE INDICATOR(S) FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS EXAMPLE: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN HEADCOUNT RATIO ( 1993-94 – 1999-2000 ) FOR ALL RURAL HOUSEHOLDS :(-)15.38 FOR SCHEDULED CASTE HOUSEHOLDS: (-) 16.00 FOR AGRICULTURAL LABOUR HOUSEHOLDS :(-) 15.73 FOR SCHEDULED TRIBE HOUSEHOLDS :(-) 1.62 MEASURE OF (EX-POST) INTEGRABILITY : SCHEDULED CASTE HOUSEHOLDS = AGRICULTURAL LABOUR HOUSEHOLDS= SCHEDULED TRIBE HOUSEHOLDS=

11. A MEASURE OF (QUALITY – ADJUSTED) EMPLOYMENT ELASTICITY : INDIA 1934-1994 - 1999-2000 1. PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN REAL GDP47.0 2. PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WORKERS IN ALL HOUSEHOLDS 6.1 3. PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WORKERS IN NON- POOR HOUSEHOLDS 13.7 4. UNADJUSTED ELASTICITY OF EMPLOYMENT w.r.t. GDP ( (2) / (1) ) 0.13 5. QUALITY – ADJUSTED EMPLOYMENT ELASTICITY w.r.t. GDP ( (3) / (1) ) 0.29