Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission
Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission
Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission
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.