1 / 26

MAPPING WOMEN, MAPPING GENDER IN THE WORLD OF WORK

MAPPING WOMEN, MAPPING GENDER IN THE WORLD OF WORK. Saraswati Raju Professor, Centre for the Study of Regional Development Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi 110067 Contact: saraswati_raju@hotmail.com. Women Workers (15 – 59). N. High (>= 60). Moderately High (45 - 60).

dolan
Télécharger la présentation

MAPPING WOMEN, MAPPING GENDER IN THE WORLD OF WORK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MAPPING WOMEN, MAPPING GENDER IN THE WORLD OF WORK Saraswati Raju Professor, Centre for the Study of Regional Development Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi 110067 Contact: saraswati_raju@hotmail.com

  2. Women Workers (15 – 59) N High (>= 60) Moderately High (45 - 60) Moderately Low (30 - 45) Low (<= 30) Inadequate sample 1993-1994 1999-2000 2004-2005 All India: 43.4 per cent All India: 44 per cent All India: 40 per cent Per cent Note for all Maps in the Presentation: New states not included for easy comparison across time Map Not to Scale Workers = Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS) Source: Computed from unit level data of NSS, various rounds .

  3. N Women Workers (15 – 59) 2007 - 2008 2009 - 2010 All India – 33.6 per cent Note for all Maps in the Presentation: Map Not to Scale Workers = Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS) Source: Computed from unit level data of NSS, various rounds . All India - 37.7 per cent

  4. N Women Workers (15-59) in Subsidiary Work, 2007-2008 Rural Urban All India: 44.0 per cent All India: 17.5 per cent

  5. Women Workers (15-59) in Subsidiary Work, 2009-2010 All India: 41.2 per cent All India: 16.5 per cent

  6. N High (>= 85) High (55 – 80) Moderate (65 - 85) Moderate (30 - 55) Low (<= 65) Low (<= 30) Inadequate sample Inadequate sample Illiterate and Below Primary Educated Workers (15 – 59): 2004-2005 Rural Urban Per cent Per cent All India Women: 73.8 per cent All India Male: 45 per cent All India Women: 43.6 per cent All India Male: 20.9 per cent

  7. N Illiterate and Below Primary Educated Workers(15 – 59): 2007-2008 Urban Rural All India - 70.1 per cent All India - 39.9 per cent

  8. m N Urban Per Cent High (55-80) Moderate (30-55) Low (12-30) Inadequate sample Illiterate and Below Primary Educated Workers (15 – 59): 2009-2010 Rural Per Cent High (>=85) Moderate (65-85) Low (<=65) Inadequate sample All India – 65.9 per cent All India – 35.6 per cent

  9. N High (55 – 75) High (20 – 38) High (44 – 84) Moderate (14 - 20) Moderate (40 - 55) Moderate (30 - 44) Low (<= 14) Low (<= 40) Low (<= 30) Inadequate sample Inadequate sample Inadequate sample Women Workers across Employment Status (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2004-2005 Self-employed Regular Salaried Casual Labour Per cent Per cent Per cent All India: 46.5 per cent All India: 36.8 per cent All India: 16.7 per cent

  10. N Women Workers across Employment Status (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2007-2008 Self-employed Regular Salaried Casual Labour All India - 41.4 per cent All India - 39.2 per cent All India - 19.4 per cent

  11. b) Regular Salaried c) Casual Labour Per cent Inadequate sample Low (20 - 30) Moderate (30 - 44) High (44 - 90) Per Cent All India - 40.6 per cent High (20.1-38) Moderate (14-20) Low (<=14) Inadequate sample Women Workers across Employment Status (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2009-2010 a) Self-Employed Per cent Inadequate sample Low (<= 40) Moderate (40 - 55) High (>= 55) All India - 40.1 per cent All India:19.3 Per cent

  12. Self-employed Workers as Home-based (15-59) in Urban India: 2009-2010 Percentage of Workers

  13. Self-Employed Workers as Unpaid Family Labour (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2004-2005

  14. Self-Employed Workers as Unpaid Family Labour (15 – 59) in Urban India: 2009-2010 Percentage of Workers

  15. Self-employed Workers who are Home-based, Rural (15-59), 2009-2010 Self-Employed Workers who are Home-based, Rural (15-59), 2009-2010 Per cent High (>80) Moderate (70-80) Low (<70) Home-based workers Inadequate sample Men Women All India - Men - 38.9 per cent All India Men: 38.9 per cent All India Women - 82.4 per cent All India Women: 82.4 per cent Map not to scale

  16. Educational Level of Self-Employed Home-based Women Workers, Rural (15-59), 2009-2010 Rural Educational Level Illiterate to below primary School Above school All inadequate samples are excluded

  17. Women not in the Formal Labour Market due to Socio-religious Reasons (15-59) Percentage of Women

  18. A Few Pointers • It has been argued that the decrease in 2009-10 superficial as the increase in 2004-05 was distress driven. • Long-term trend shows secular decline. • Somewhat substantiated claim- the added workforce (2004-2005) essentially that of illiterate or lowly literate women. • Decrease in child labour and more girls in educational institutes. • However, 24-35 years of age – absolute decline.

  19. However, regionally differentiated pattern in terms of additional workers – mainly in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. • The outcomes appear similar, but the processes are very different, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh versus Haryana and Punjab.

  20. Overall, the regionally differentiated spaces - the north Indian Plain vis-a-via the rest - show up consistently in terms of formally acknowledged lower work participation rates (principal status) of women. • The subsidiary work pattern is just the reverse - women as supplementary earners. However, when the self-employed women – majority of whom are home-based - are considered, the regional differentiation is stark. • This pattern cuts across comparable poverty levels, cropping pattern & developmental levels.

  21. Cont. . . • It also corresponds with regionally embedded social and religious constraints. • The embeddedness of regional ethos in terms of reticence or liberal towards women`s visibility in public domain. • Inferred from rural-urban correspondence (r-u, 2004-5 = r 08; 2009-10- = r 0.8; r-r = 0.7, u-u = 06, all values statistically significant), suggesting spatially co-varying pattern. • And yet, it gets further complicated.

  22. Cont. . . • When it comes to home-based work and unpaid family labour, the regional variations, with fewer exceptions, are considerably obliterated. • At one level then, regions emerge as significant where at another level, they homogenize. • Thus, as long as women remain within the household sphere, their status as workers gets socially approved whereas the recognition of work in public domain is regionally differentiated. • I argue that this process is contingent upon the almost omnipresent social construct of women`s primary location within the household domain.

  23. Concluding. . . • Even the salaried workers are either in social work or teaching. The category which has shown the highest growth both during 2004-05 and 2009-10 is in domestic work. • Added to this is the observation that now the formal sector contracts out work which is primarily being carried out informally. • The neo-liberal regime that saw overwhelming concentration of women in home-bound work serves the capital well in terms of cheap and flexible labour.

  24. It seems that capital is well-placed to not only use the existing gendered constructs, but also reinforce them to its benefits through a variety of market mechanisms. • The approach paper to the 12th Five Year Plan has no chapter on employment!

  25. Concluding. . . In Sum, • The gendered vulnerabilities and multi-layered and have to be understood through regionally contextualized analyses because the labour market dynamics play out differently in different environs.

  26. Thank You

More Related