SOIL Report 2008 - ACCESS Development Services

Chapter IIIto, the vulnerability context in which they live, and by the structure and processes (such as governmentschemes, cultural, political and institutional factors) prevailing in society at the time.Theallocationto theagriculturesector was3.74 percent ofthe totalBudget.Given thatmore thanhalf thepopulationis stilldependentonagriculture,theagriculturesectordeservesgreaterallocationsto be able toachieve foodsecurity.To begin with, an analysis of the government’s financial allocations for various sectors would present anoverview of its sectoral priorities. The total planned expenditure as per the 11th Plan is Rs 36, 44,717crore ($911 billion), over twice the 10th Plan budget (see annex. Table A.3.1) Out of the total, 69 percent is allocated for energy, social services, transport, rural development and irrigation and food control,which is a reduction of 10 per cent compared to the 10th Five-Year Plan. Emphasis on these is welltaken, as they are key sectors that have a positive impact on livelihoods. The allocation to the agriculturesector was 3.74 per cent of the total budget. Given that more than half the population is still dependenton agriculture (Census 2001; MoSPI, 2005), the agriculture sector deserves greater allocations to be ableto achieve food security.However, the three sectors to which the highest allocations have been made are social services, energyand transport, with social services moving up to the first position in the annual budgets of 2007-’08and 2008-’09. As components within each budget head have been changing, an analysis of financialallocations alone is inadequate, and calls for analysing the most important schemes in the relevant sectors– employment-related policies, urban and rural livelihoods policies, and the social inclusion perspectivesspelt out by the 11th Plan.2. The 11th Plan deems it appropriate to work towards a strategy in whichthere is higher growth in non-service sector employment opportunities inrural areasThe 11th Plan has an ambitious approach to increasing employment and it has identified the followingweaknesses in the employment matrix:• The rate of unemployment has increased from 6.1 per cent in 1993-’94 to 7.3 per cent in 1999-2000,and further to 8.3 per cent in 2004-’05.• Unemployment among agricultural labour households has risen from 9.5 per cent in 1993-’94 to15.3 per cent in 2004-’05.• Under-employment appears to be on the rise, as evident from a widening of the gap between theusual status and the Current Daily Status (CDS) measures of creation of incremental employmentopportunities between 1994 to 2000 and 2000 to 2005.• While non-agricultural employment expanded at a robust annual rate of 4.7 per cent during theperiod 1999-2000 to 2004-’05, this growth was largely in the unorganised sector.• Despite fairly healthy GDP growth, employment in the organised sector actually declined, leadingto frustration among the educated youth who have rising expectations.• Growth of average real wage rates in non-agriculture employment in the period 1999-2000 to2004-’05 has been negligible. Seen over the longer period of two decades the wages have steadilyincreased at over 2 per cent per annum.60• Real wages stagnated or declined even for workers in the organised industry although managerialand technical staff did secure a large increase.• Wage share in the organised industrial sector has halved after the 1980s and is now among the lowestin the world.60