03.02.2014 Views

Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission

Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission

Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

106<br />

Compared to the all-India pattern, however,<br />

<strong>Kerala</strong>’s historical specificity has thrown up a more<br />

differentiated industrial structure, with a much larger<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> women in non-agricultural employment<br />

(40 per cent, the highest in India). Agriculture still<br />

accounts for about 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> female employment<br />

in rural areas, though absolute numbers employed have<br />

been declining (Appendix Table A7.2). The decline is<br />

partly due to a changing cropping pattern and partly<br />

because young, literate work seekers are unwilling to<br />

work in this low status occupation. There is significant<br />

district-wise variation. The 2001 Census reveals that<br />

the percentage <strong>of</strong> cultivators, men and women, among<br />

all workers is significantly higher in the eastern hilly<br />

districts <strong>of</strong> Idukki and Wayanad. However, Palakkad,<br />

a major rice growing area, has the highest percentage<br />

<strong>of</strong> female agricultural labourers, more than half <strong>of</strong> all<br />

women workers and correspondingly the lowest level<br />

<strong>of</strong> other workers. For men in contrast, Palakkad follows<br />

Wayanad and Idukki. Thus, while more than 60 per cent<br />

<strong>of</strong> all workers in <strong>Kerala</strong> are ‘other workers’, in Idukki and<br />

Wayanad, it is only about 50 per cent (Table 7.7).<br />

Significantly, the 2003 survey found only around<br />

3 per cent <strong>of</strong> educated employed women between 15 and<br />

59 years were in agricultural and allied activities. According<br />

to the NSSO data, the non-agricultural segments, which<br />

absorb a high proportion <strong>of</strong> women, are manufacturing,<br />

trade, hotels and public administration, social and personal<br />

services; in all these, women’s employment has grown in<br />

the 1990s. However, direct estimates <strong>of</strong> employment in<br />

the informal sector 5 in 1999-00 show that manufacturing,<br />

construction and trade – all industry segments in which<br />

the share <strong>of</strong> informal sector is high – absorb higher<br />

proportions <strong>of</strong> women workers. Over three-fourths <strong>of</strong><br />

the female workers in manufacturing are in the informal<br />

sector compared to less than 70 per cent for males and<br />

81 per cent in construction vis-à-vis 70 per cent for males.<br />

The share <strong>of</strong> the formal sector is high in public, social and<br />

personal services.<br />

Given this data on industrial distribution <strong>of</strong> women<br />

workers, changes in women’s employment by status<br />

– viz. the significant increase in regular employment,<br />

particularly in urban areas, from about 26 to<br />

32 per cent between 1993-94 and 1999-00 is surprising<br />

(Table 7.5). With such a large proportion <strong>of</strong> women in the<br />

manufacturing sector, construction and trade being in the<br />

informal sector, and a context in which the formal sector<br />

is becoming ‘informalised’ (Unni, 2001), there is reason<br />

to revisit this whole notion <strong>of</strong> ‘regular’ employment as<br />

defined by the NSSO (Eapen, 2001).<br />

Table. 7.7: Percentage Distribution <strong>of</strong> Category <strong>of</strong> Workers (Main and Marginal), 2001 by District<br />

Districts Cultivators Agricultural Labourers Household Industry Other Workers<br />

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total<br />

Thiruvananthapuram 5.5 4.4 5.2 16.3 12.1 15.4 2.7 9.4 4.2 75.5 74.2 75.2<br />

Kollam 8.5 2.1 6.8 17.4 7.4 14.7 2.1 3.4 2.4 72.1 87.1 76.1<br />

Pathanamthitta 16.0 5.4 13.5 21.2 16.0 20.0 2.0 4.1 2.5 60.9 74.5 64.0<br />

Alappuzha 4.7 1.1 3.6 12.9 16.8 14.1 4.1 13.9 7.1 78.4 68.2 75.3<br />

Kottayam 9.3 2.1 24.5 12.7 15.2 41.7 2.3 6.6 10.0 75.7 76.2 23.8<br />

Idukki 25.5 12.2 21.2 24.6 32.1 27.0 1.1 2.0 1.4 48.8 53.7 50.4<br />

Ernakulam 5.7 3.9 5.2 6.2 13.5 8.0 2.1 4.6 2.7 86.0 77.9 84.1<br />

Thrissur 5.9 4.0 5.5 8.6 20.2 11.4 3.8 9.1 5.1 81.8 66.7 78.1<br />

Palakkad 10.0 7.0 9.1 23.8 56.7 33.7 3.2 3.6 3.3 63.1 32.6 53.9<br />

Malappuram 6.9 4.3 6.5 16.2 27.5 17.8 1.5 4.0 1.9 75.4 64.2 73.8<br />

Kozhikode 3.5 2.6 3.4 7.8 10.8 8.2 1.4 3.9 1.8 87.3 82.6 86.6<br />

Wayanad 19.8 9.8 16.9 27.8 37.4 30.6 0.8 1.2 0.9 51.6 51.6 51.6<br />

Kannur 6.1 6.9 6.3 10.5 22.6 13.5 1.9 4.5 2.5 81.6 66.1 77.7<br />

Kasaragod 5.8 2.6 4.8 9.6 10.9 10.0 2.4 33.7 12.0 82.2 52.8 73.2<br />

<strong>Kerala</strong> 8.0 4.7 7.2 14.2 22.0 16.1 2.3 7.3 3.5 75.5 66.0 73.2<br />

Coefficient <strong>of</strong> Variation (%) 65.4 62.3 69.7 42.8 60.1 52.5 40.4 107.4 78.0 16.2 21.2 24.3<br />

Source: Primary Census Abstracts 2001, Census <strong>of</strong> India 1991, 2001.<br />

5 This data is brought out for the first time by the NSSO together with the 55th Round on Employment and Unemployment in India.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!