Representative file image. , Photo Credit: V. Ganesan
The Economic Survey (ES) of 2022-23 must be given credit for acknowledging that official data inadequately reflected the true nature of women’s work in India. This inadequacy affects both how we view women’s economic contribution and the policies we develop to increase women’s economic participation.
The Economic Survey lists three sources of measurement error: (1) using too broad categories that associate productive economic activity with household unpaid work (as in activity code 93 in the NSS, or the National Sample Survey, Employment Survey) ; (2) asking single-shot questions without examining how women’s work is classified; and (3) not occupying the expenditure-saving function that contributes to household well-being. The Economic Survey further recommends revising labor force surveys (for example, the Periodic Labor Force Survey) to bring them in line with the methodology recommended by the International Labor Organization (ILO), listing a pre-defined set of activities possible, so that underreporting can be eliminated.
a clear picture
This focus on improving the measurement of women’s labor market movements is welcome. National Council of Applied Economics Research (NCAER)’s National Data Innovation Center conducted an experiment in 2019 in the Delhi National Capital Region under the Delhi Metropolitan Area Study (DMAS). The experiment compared one-shot questionnaires following the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) method of calculating common principal and subsidiary activity status. These questions were followed by more detailed questions. Afterwards, respondents were asked about engaging in a predefined and exhaustive set of activities, along with the amount of time spent in each of these activities. The DMAS survey results underestimated women’s work by five percentage points following the activity index method, including work on family farm/leased land, self-employment and daily wage work. was underestimated when including livestock care which was 16 percentage points. This was mainly driven by rural area estimates, where the underestimation was 34 percentage points, but only 2 percentage points in urban areas. Note that these comparisons are for the same women, which allows us to obtain an accurate estimate of measurement error.
While it is difficult to generalize based on urban and rural areas around Delhi, these results highlight the deep challenges in measuring women’s work. Interviewers as well as respondents have a tendency to overlook the work of women, especially those working in family-based enterprises. Our observations from field visits suggest that while male farmers consider themselves employed in agriculture, female farmers view agricultural activities as an extension of their domestic duties.
From a policy perspective, ignoring measurement errors can lead to a focus on the declining labor force participation rate (LFPR) of women with low education, while on moderately educated women as indicated in a study by Isha Chatterjee, Sonalde Desai, Attention is needed. and Reeve Weinman (2019), who show that occupational sex segregation as well as a lack of demand for moderately educated women may have led to a lower LFPR. Moderately educated Indian women are less likely to opt for manual labor on family farms or in wage work, but also in non-manual semi-skilled jobs such as bus driving or mason work, as well as some white-collar jobs. has also been excluded from functions such as sales. This has implications for targeting skilling programs for women in non-traditional sectors. Measurement issues also have implications for designing social protection measures, with fewer economically active women translating into lower budgetary allocations for informal female workers.
While the Economic Survey should be commended for its recommendations for improving the measurement of women’s work, its proposal to expand the definition of what counts as employment is somewhat simplistic. The 2019 Time Use Survey shows that women often engage in a variety of activities that can be classified as “spending-saving”. This includes collecting firewood, fetching water and preparing flour from wheat to reduce procurement costs. This also includes teaching children and cooking. The Economic Survey suggested that we should recognize this “work” along with “employment” and collect this information through newly designed surveys.
proceed with caution
Politically it is quite attractive, and in line with a current of feminist activism. Expanding the definition of work immediately expands the number of female workers – which comprises almost the total adult female population in India – and softens the stigma of low female work participation rates in India. It is also associated with feminist advocacy which has sought to recognize the unpaid work of women. However, there are two drawbacks to this approach. One, it combines activities within and outside the production boundary of the System of National Accounts (SNA), where own-use production of items such as growing vegetables or caring for livestock is seen as within the production boundary, while children Teaching to is generally considered outside. production limit. Two, activities that are done for lack of infrastructure are suddenly seen as valuable, instead of being classified as “domestic drudgery”. Women’s participation in these activities (for example, fetching firewood) may be essential to household survival, but some women would prefer to rely on wood-fired cooking if they had easy access to a gas stove. Our research has shown that women’s participation in paid work provides an incentive for households to break away from domestic drudgery and invest in time-saving infrastructure like LPG cylinders.
This is probably why the 19th International Conference of Labor Statisticians (ICLS) in 2013 recommended that the labor force survey collect data on a variety of activities such as production of goods and services for own use, for pay or profit. Work, unpaid apprentice work, and volunteer activities, but only the production of goods and services for pay or profit, are counted as employment.
By giving importance to the diverse activities of women, we may treat their weaknesses as strengths and fail to acknowledge the lack of access to income-generating activities for women. Perhaps the most bizarre case of taking women’s contribution for granted is reflected in the debate generated by an article Economic and Political Weekly, In which Arun Gupta and John Rode valued the economic contribution of breast milk to $2,300 million in foreign exchange in 1993. The article sparked a debate, leading Meena Swaminathan to argue that this hedonistic approach to women’s contribution to family welfare leads us to neglect nutritional costs. Develop a stereotype of mothers and “good” mothers that ignores the constraints under which working mothers operate.
As India aspires to achieve inclusive economic growth and provide opportunities for all workers with decent working conditions in line with SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) 8, getting an accurate measure of women’s economic activity is of utmost importance.
Pallavi Chowdhary is a Senior Fellow at the National Council of Applied Economics Research. Sonalde Desai is Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland and Professor and Center Director, NCAER-National Data Innovation Center. views are personal