12.07.2015 Views

SOIL Report 2011 - ACCESS Development Services

SOIL Report 2011 - ACCESS Development Services

SOIL Report 2011 - ACCESS Development Services

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

34 State of India’s Livelihoods <strong>Report</strong> <strong>2011</strong>to 20 per cent in 2001, and to 20.5 per centin 2007–08. 18 Though, for the dividend toaccrue, the youth have to seek work andfind employment. Jobs have to be generatedcommensurate to the pace of entry of young(and old) people in the labour market. Ifnot, then, the ‘demographic dividend’ mayturn into a ‘demographic nightmare’, as theunemployed young become a social andeconomic burden on the household andthe country.Let us first look at the patterns of youthemployment and unemployment in India. 19A little more than half of the youth workersin 2007–08 were employed in the agriculturesector (54.4 per cent). The other sectorswhich employ youth in a significant proportionwere manufacturing (15 per cent),wholesale (10.8 per cent), construction(7.2 per cent) and community services(5.1 per cent). The share of computerrelatedservices, a major component of thehighly publicized information technology(IT) sector brimming with youth, to totalemployment is less than half a per cent(0.18) and the percentage of young workersin it is almost half of those in the 25 to34 age group.Urban and rural youth and male andfemale youth employment patterns showsignificant differences on several fronts.Rural youth in 2007–08, were employed infar greater proportion (38.6 per cent versus21 per cent urban youth) as casual labour,with the least proportion in regular salariedwork (7.6 per cent versus 43.5 per cent urbanyouth). More than half the rural youth wereself-employed (53.8 per cent versus 35.5urban youth).When we examine unemployment patternswe find that youth have the highestunemployment rate (usual status measure)and in this demographic the age cohort 20to 24 years has a higher unemploymentlevel (see Figure 2.14) (Mitra 2008).The work force participation rate (WFPR)and the LFPR declined for the below 30 agegroup over the 1983 to 2007–08 period.This can be seen in rural and urban areasas well as among males and females (ibid.).In 2004–05, a total of 107.3 million youthwere in the workforce and of these 8.6 millionwere unemployed. Disturbingly, thisis about 8 per cent of the youth workforceand 64.1 per cent of the total unemployedFigure 2.14: Unemployment rate in India by age group, 1983 to 2007–08Source: Mahendra and Venkatnarayana (<strong>2011</strong>, p. 9).Note: Usual status.18The entire discussion draws heavily from Dev andVenkatnarayana (<strong>2011</strong>). It covers the period from 1983to 2004–05 unless mentioned otherwise.19Ibid., pp. 15–16, Table 4.4.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!