fd^^tnt of pf|ilo;8tipiiy - core
TRANSCRIPT
IMPACT OF ECONOMIC LIBERALISATION ON EMPLOYMENT
STRUCTURE IN UTTAR PRADESH
DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Award of the Degree of
fD^^tnt of pf|ilo;8tipIiy '^ ^
v*^.
IN
GEOGRAPHY
\ v\'' \ -f . By ^ fi' t. / '
Sharqua Iloori Bnsari
"-'tsc. - • " ^
Under the Supervision of
Pnof. Saveed ilhmad Khan
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH (INDIA) 2010
DS4215
2 2 M 2C13 ftA tn Cr.mt)tit^
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY FACULTY OF SCIENCE
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH - 202 002 (INDIA)
Phone: 0571-2700683 Fax: 0571-2700528
(Dated.. AP.:.K.^.'L'.'i
Certificate
This is to certify that Ms, Sharqua No&ri Ansari has . ' * ' ' ' '
completed her M.Phil, dissertation entitled "!Bb» Imptict of
Economic Liberalisation on Employment Structure in
Uttar Pradesh'^, under my supervision. To the best of my
knowledge, the work is original.
A r i
(Prof Sayeed Ahmad Khan)
Supervisor
H 1
to
m^ "Barents
L — , ji
CONTENTS
Page No.
Acknowledgement
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter - 1 Economic Liberalisation (Conceptual framework) 1
Origin of the Concept
Globalisation
Impact of Liberalisation on Economy
Impact of Liberalisation on Employment
Organised and Unorganised Sector
Chapter - 11 The Economic Liberalisation in India 19
The Beginning
Consequences of Economic Liberalisation
Chapter - I I I Literature Review 36
Chapter - IV Uttar Pradesh: A Geographical Outline 51
Physical Aspects
Social Aspects
Chapter - V Impact of Economic Liberalisation on 69
Employment Structure in Uttar Pradesh:
An Analysis
Trends of Employment Change in Three Sectors of the
Economy
Correlation Coefficient Technique
Conclusion
Proposed Plan for Ph.D. Work 111
Bibliography 112
Annexure 120
Acknowledgement
I express my deep sense of gratitude to my respected supervisor Prof.
Sayeed Ahmad Khan, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University,
for his inspiring thought, provoking suggestions, constructive criticism, support
and sympathy during the course of this work.
I am also grateful to Prof. Farasat AH Siddiqui, Chairman Department
of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, for providing me all possible help
during the.course of my work.
I offer my sincere most thanks to all my teachers, my seniors, research
mates, and juniors for their help and support. I am also thankful to the staff of
central and departmental library for their help and cooperation.
And veiy special thanks to Dr. Fatma Maher Sultana, and Dr. Sabah
Aapa. for their continuous support and encouragement, that made this
dissertation possible.
I feel bestowed with an honor in acknowledging my indebtedness and
heartful thanks to my parents. Their constant support and encouragement made
my dissertation possible. I would especially like to thank my mother, in
particular for her strength and support, who stood by my side in all odds. I
would like to share my deep sense of love and affection to my brothers Md.
Ishraque and Md. Afaque for their unfailing love and support throughout my
life.
Last but not the least, I am highly thankful to my loving friends and
caring room mates namely, Nazia, Nigar, Mariyam, Shabana, Aliya, Shaista,
Shama, Shaista Khan, Laxmi, Bushra, Anjum, Nikhat for their continuous
support and help.
(Sharqiia Noori Ansari)
List of Tables
Table No. Titles
2.1 Trends in India's FDI and Trade Flows (1980 to 2003)
2.2 Distribution of India's Total Workers, and its Change
2.3 Trends in Employment Structure in India (in Million)
2.4 Workforce Participation Rate of Male and Female in Urban
and Rural areas in India
4.1 Trends in Population Growth in Uttar Pradesh & India
4.2 Sector Wise Share of GDP (%) in Uttar Pradesh
4.3 Trends of Urbanisation in India
5.1 Distribution of Workforce across Sectors and its Change
in Uttar Pradesh
5.2 Loss of Primary Activities
5.3 Loss of Secondary Activities
5.4 Gains in Tertiary Activities
5.5 Per Capita Income of India and Uttar Pradesh (Rs.)
5.6 District wise Per Capita Income of Uttar Pradesh, 1997-98 (Rs.)
5.7 Distribution of Per Capita Income
5.8 Sectoral Distribution of Workforce in Primary Sector
5.9 Sectoral Distribution of Workforce in Secondary Sector
5.10 Sectoral Distribution of Workforce in Tertiary Sector
5.11 Showing Correlations between District Wise Per Capita Income
With Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Sectors
List of Figures
Figure No. Titles
2.1 Estimated Increase in Labour Force
4.1 Location Map - Uttar Pradesh
4.2 Districts in Uttar Pradesh
4.3 Distribution of GSDP of Uttar Pradesh
5.1 Loss of Primary Activities
5.2 Loss of Secondary Activities
5.3 Gains in Tertiary Activities
5.4 Uttar Pradesh - Per Capita Income
Chapter - 1 Economic Liberalisation -
(Conceptual framework)
Origin of the Concept
Globalisation
Impact of Liberalisation on Economy
Impact of Liberalisation on Employment
Organised and Unorganised Sector
*
Chapter -1
Economic Liberalisation - Conceptual framework
Economic Liberalisation means removal of barriers from inter-country
trades. It refers to the process of a country opening its market to outside forces
as a way of becoming more integrated into the global economy. The term
emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and emphasised the pre
eminence of the individual and its freedom. Economic liberalisation is defined,
as any act that would make the trade regime more neutral, nearer to trade
system free of government intervention (Papageorgion et.al.l990). It is a policy
of promoting liberal economics by limiting the role of government to the
market economy that works efficiently, this can include privatisation and
deregulation. Thus, liberalisation refers to a decrease in usually the intervention
of the state/government in particular areas of social and economic policy.
Liberalisation, in the globalisation context is normally used to refer to a more
'Laissez Faire' approach to economic matters. This classically involves
privatisation of previously state run enterprises as well as the opening up of
economic borders for the purpose of trade and foreign investment. Such
policies and actions are also referred to as being neoliberal. Privatisation and
general deregulation are core features of liberalisation. Global financial
institutions such as International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade
Organisafion (WTO) are largely predicated on the positive value of
liberalisation. Liberalisation also refers to a modem view of society that can be
seen as threat to social values, particularly those of social cohesion and
community (Rodrik 1997, Tomell 2005). The process of economic
liberalisation and market oriented economic reforms had started in many
developing countries in early 1980's but intensified after 1991. Recent
developments in trade policy literature focus on the potential dynamic effects
of trade liberalisation in reducing rent seeking behavior and in accelerating the
flow of technical knowledge from the world market. The benefits are derived
from the greater access to new capital and intermediate goods, and also due to
greater knowledge leading to faster imitation of advanced techniques (Romer
1994, Grossman and Helpman 1995). Finally, an increase in openness is
equated with an increase in the importance of trade in the economy as
percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Pritchet 1996). A good measure
of trade policy ought to capture differences between neutral, inward oriented
and export promoting regime (Harrison 1996). Some scholars, (Nishimizu and
Robinson 1984) argue that, there is an implicit, 'Challenge-Response'
mechanism induced by competition from trade reforms. This argument assumes
that, there is a satisfying and optimising behavior on part of the finns as
regards the business objective. This is due to insufficient competitive pressure
prevailing in a regime closed to foreign trade. (Rodrik 1992), has pointed out it
is possible to argue analytically that a protected market, by ensuring a large
market share for the domestic producers, will make it worth while to invest in
productivity enhancing technology. Trade Liberalisation also enables cheaper
and easier access to foreign technologies and global capital and makes possible
greater international exchange of information. Lowering of trade restrictions
make possible the import of capital and intermediate goods which embody
superior technology and this helps in reducing costs and also in turn increasing
productivity growth in the sectors those uses these using products.
Origin of the Concept
The liberal theory of economics is believed, to be first fully formulated
by Adam Smith which advocates minimal interference of the government in the
economy. The case for economic liberalism which began to be argued in the
eighteenth centur\' was, then startling claim that, if everyone is left to their own
economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would
be a harmonious and more equal society of ever increasing prosperity. It is the
economic component of the political ideology of classical liberalism. The
concept of economic liberalism or market liberalism underpinned the move
towards a free market capitalist economic system in the late 18th century, and
the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system. Today, the liberal theory of
economics is strongly associated with libertarianism, neoliberal economics.
Initially, the liberal theory of economics had to contend with the supporters of
feudal privileges for the wealthy, aristocratic traditions and the rights of kings
to run national economies in their own personal interests. By the end of the
19th century and the beginning of the 20th, these were largely defeated.
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism refers to a political movement that espouses economic
liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing
political liberty. The movement is sometimes described as an effort to revert to
the economic policies of the 18th and 19th century's classical liberalism.
Strictly in the context of English language usage the term is an abbreviation of
'neoclassical liberalism', since in other languages 'liberalism', minus any
modifier such as 'social' (as in social liberalism), has more or less retained its
classical meaning. Neoliberalism refers to a historically specific re-emergence
of economic liberalism's influence among economic scholars and policy
makers during the 1970s and late 1990s, and possibly into the present. In many
respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical by influenced
economic theories, right wing libertarian political philosophies, and political
rhetoric that portrayed government control over the economy as inefficient,
comipt or otherwise undesirable. Neoliberal arguments gained a great deal of
clout after the Stagflation Crisis of the 1970s, the Developing World Debt
Crisis of the 1980s, and the Soviet Collapse of the early 1990s. Neoliberalism
is that it is to bring compassion to the people of a nation through social equality
and employment freedom and civil right.
Globalisation
Globalisation, describe as an ongoing process by which regional
economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe
spanning network of communication and execution. The term is sometimes
used to refer specifically to, Economic Globalisation: the integration of
national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct
investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology. However,
globalisation is usually recognised as being driven by a combination of
economic, technological, socio-cultural, political and biological factors. It had
achieved widespread use in the mainstream press by the later half of the 1980s.
Since its inception, the concept of globalisation has inspired numerous
competing definitions and interpretations. The United Nation, has written that
globalisation is a widely used term that can be defined in a number of different
ways, when used in an economic context, it refers to the reduction and removal
of barriers between national borders in order to facilitate the flow of goods,
capital, services and labour, although considerable barriers remain to the flow
of labour. Globalisation is not a new phenomenon, it began in the late
nineteenth century, but it slowed down, from the start of the First Worid War
and remained the same till, the third quarter of the twentieth century.-Herman
E. Daly, argues that sometimes the terms intemationalisation and globalisation
are used interchangeably but there is a significant formal difference. The term
'intemationalisation' refers to the importance of international trade, relations,
treaties etc. owing to the hypothetical immobility of labour and capital between
or among nations. Globalisation is the process that arises spontaneously in the
market and acts by developing a progressive international division of labour,
eliminating restrictions on individual liberties, reducing transportation and
communication costs, and increasingly integrating the individuals that compose
the great society. It is expressed as: economic globalisation, namely, the
opening and deregulation of commodity, capital and labour markets which led
to the present form of neoliberal globalisation, political globalisation, cultural
globalisation, i.e., the worldwide homogenisation of culture, ideological
globalisation, technological globalisation, and social globalisation. The whole
idea of globalisation therefore, revolves around other new realities and
terminologies as, information technology, deregulation, trade liberaHsation,
economic competition or free enterprises and an emergent poHtical
structure/system that is people oriented etc. More explicitly, perhaps, it refers
to a process of increasing economic openness, growing economic
interdependence and deepening economic integration between countries of the
world. It is associated to not only a phenomenal spread and volume of cross
border economic transactions, but also with an organisation of economic
activities which straddles national boundaries. The breakdown of boundaries as
barriers to economic exploitation that globalisation represents means that every
country of this world, rich/developed or poor/developing would have access to
every other country. That is, the developing nations would have access to the
markets of the developed countries, unrestricted and vice versa, 'it will be a
borderless world'. Roseanne and Giddiness, define 'globalisation is a central
7
driving force behind the rapid social, poHtical and economic changes that are
reshaping modem societies and world order'. According to their views,
'contemporary patterns of globalisation are conceived as historically
unprecedented such that the governments (states) and societies across the globe
are having to adjust to a world in which there is no longer a clear distinction
between international and domestic, external and internal affairs'. It is also true
that globalisation is seen here as a powerful transformative force which is
responsible for a 'massive shake-out' of societies, economies, institutions of
governance and world order. Globalisation is a multi-sided phenomenon
involving increasing interdependence and interaction between people
worldwide across a range of economic, political, cultural and environmental
dimensions. Globalisation has been facilitated by advancement in
communication and transport, which have reduced the cost and extended the
range of available options for global commerce and cultural interaction.
Furthermore, this has been associated with a significant increase in the level of
global economic production, which, in turn, has led to global environmental
consequences such as those arising from increased levels of greenhouse gases.
In addition, rapid communication and global media coverage often result in
localised environmental and social issues receiving worldwide attention and
increasingly outside intervention of one kind or another in foreign countries.
Processes making for globalisation have been operating for centuries but the
history involved is varied and complex. Such factors as the rise of nation states,
the establishment of regional trading blocks, European geographical
8
discoveries, the rise and fall of empires, as well as technological advances,
have all played a role. A major influence in recent decades has been the push to
reduce man made trading barriers between nations, and consequently facilitates
greater freedom of international trade. In the last three decades or so, reduction
in international trade barriers (such as those posed by tariffs, import quotas and
qualitative restrictions) have significantly facilitated economic globalisation.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the
World Trade Organisation (WTO), have played a major role in this process. So,
have the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in terms of
advice given to governments and conditions imposed on loans to nations
requiring economic assistance. Such international institutions have put pressure
on all nations (including Bangladesh) to embrace international free trade and
make maximum use of free market mechanisms in organising economic
activity within their own countries. The general principles involving small
government and free markets are contained in the so called 'Washington
Consensus.' Benefits claimed by international bodies such as the Wodd Bank
and WTO for global economic liberalisation, include the following:
• Greater efficiency in satisfying human wants in relation to resource use,
as predicted by neoclassical economic theory,
• Poverty alleviation, particularly in the longer term,
• Acceleration of economic growth.
According to Herman E. Daly, globalisation serves the vision of a
single, cosmopolitan, integrated global economy. This definition focuses on the
cross border movement of goods, services and resources (financial and human)
impact on the domestic and global assets and employment. Globalisation
focuses on an integrated economic world in which the economy is a single
market characterised by trade and investment flows, cross border economic
activities in production, investment financing, movement of capital,
technology, labor, intemationalisation of consumption, capital, and services.
Economic liberalisation is the gateway of globalisation and financial liberation
plays the most crucial role in integration of one country's economy on the
global economic network. In the very beginning, important instruments of
liberalisation are regulation of financial market to allow foreign capital, foreign
investment, to and fro flow of capital, reduction of tariff and non tariff barriers
of trade, simplifications of customs measures. For successful global integration
a country must move to economic liberalisation by dismantling entry barriers
and licensing system, reduction in physical restrictions on imports, reduction in
control on capital and current account, reforming financial system and opening
up financial market to private (domestic and foreign) players, removing
controls on foreign capital (FDI) flow to the country etc. Liberalisation and
globalisation produces immense benefits to the countries integrated with each
other. Liberalisation creates conducive climate for faster economic growth,
allows upgradation of technology, provide scale economy, expansion of
markets domestically and internationally. Economic integration through
liberalisation can also expand job opportunities in domestic market and
migration of labour in general. Financial Globalisation produces higher
10
economic growth through direct and indirect impact on economy.
Liberalisation and globalisation produce immense benefits to the countries
integrated. Financial Liberalisation has forced many countries to open up
financial markets and relax the rules of intermediation allowing financial
services institutions like investment banks, asset management companies,
mutual funds, pension funds, to operate in newly liberalised markets. The
forces of change unleashed by financial globalisation, reflected in
disintermediation of banking system, increase in cross border financial activity
increased competition in savings market convergence in financial services
industry. A major breakthrough was achieved in 1997 with an agreement of
liberalisation of financial services following which 102 countries committed to
remove entry barriers and liberalise their markets. The General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) agreement offers legal security and protection to
global insurance players.
Impact of Liberalisation on Economy
There are many studies based on the orthodox supply tradition which
explain the impact of trade liberalisation on export growth in developing
countries. Some such investigations confirm that the countries that embarked
on liberalisation programmes have improved their export performance (Thomas
et al. 1991, Weiss 1992, Joshi and Little 1996, Helleiner 1994, and Ahmed
2000). Regardless, surveying in the 1990s, (Bhalla 2005) believes that India
has had the best of both worlds, combining growth with equity, and that it has
been to reduce poverty and place a considerable degree of restraint on
inequality while maintaining high economic growth. The implication is that the
sectors that gain in productivity are exportable sectors and the import
competing sectors have a non positive impact as far as technological change is
concerned. (Nagarj 2005) examine, that some positive features show, in India's
record its industry is more competitive, largely dependent on local demand and
local content, and predominantly domestically owned. Besides sustained
industrial growth, globalisation and liberalisation have made possible
breakthrough in new areas of economic strength, information technology,
pharmaceuticals, and automobile components. In the case of computer
software, India has emerged as a major economic power. It is hard to imagine
that such development would have been possible without globalisation and
liberalisation. On the other hand, there is little evidence to uphold the
relationship between trade liberalisation and export growth (UNCTAD 1989,
Agosin 1991, Greenaway and Sapsford 1994, Shafaeddin 1994, and Jenkins
12
1996). The literature suggests that, export growth and economic growth are
positively correlated. Those economies that are more open are more likely to
have a better economic performance than those that are closed. It is also
recognized that externalities are an important source of rapid productivity and
growth, particularly through the spillover effect to the rest of the economy of
exports of manufactured goods (World Bank 1993).
Impact of Liberalisation on Employment
The impact of trade liberalisation on employment is of particular
significance. The level of employment is a key determinant of overall
economic welfare, both in developed and developing countries. Studies for
Latin American countries show, that the impact of trade liberalisation on
productivity growth is mixed. In Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Bolivia the
impact is either weak or negative. Brazil and Peru confirm the presence of a
positive association between trade liberalisation and productivity. It is
interesting to note that the last two countries fall into the category of late
reformers. It is however important to add that the trade and macro economic
policies of the late reformers prior to reform differ rather considerably from
those of the early reformers (Dean et al. 1994). Hadded et al. (1996) undertake
a quantitative assessment of the impact of trade liberalisation on productivity
growth using data on Moroccan industrial firms during the period 1984-89.
Two important results emerge from the study. First, there is no indication that
greater competition from imports enhances productivity growth at the industry
level. Second a positive correlation is found between Total Factor Productivity
13
(TFP) growth and export only at the firm level. Taiwan was the first developing
country to bring a shift, in a major way to outward orientation in the late 1950's
by unifying and devaluating the exchange rate and adopting measures which
gave exporters more or less free trade status. Korea followed Taiwan with a
five year lag and by 1985 had removed most quantitative restrictions and was
well on way to tariff levels of developed countries. Sri Lanka is an exception in
South Asia and replaced virtually all quantitative restrictions with tariffs by
1977 and by mid 1980s there were no bans, import quotas and domestic content
requirements. (Wignaraja 1994) and (Forouton 1991) observes that
productivity in the private sectors was higher than in the public sector. (Kim
2000) examines the dynamic impact of trade liberalisation on productivity,
competition and scale efficiency. The study of (Goldar and Kumari 2002)
covering the period till 1997-98 shows that a reduction in effective rate of
protection to industries appeared to have a favorable effect on productivity
growth in Indian industries. However the observed fall in productivity in the
1990s may be attributable partly to the gestation lags in investment projects.
(Sen and Chand 2002) shows that a reduction in the price wedge has a positive
impact on productivity growth. Their study however covers the much of the
period 1973-88 before the onset of major trade liberalisation attempts.
14
Organised and Unorganised Sectors
The primary impact of trade liberalisation, has been on the
manufacturing and other organised sectors of the economy. Much of the
economic activity in the urban informal sector and in subsistence agriculture
consists of non tradable goods. The impact of trade liberalisation on
employment is thus largely indirect, occurring through changes in relative
prices and in the probability of obtaining employment in the organised sector.
A particular concern that has surfaced over the impact of trade liberalisation on
workers and producers outside the organised sector is that of their possible
exclusion from the benefits of that liberalisation. From a labour market
perspective, the concern is that, even where trade liberalisation results in a
rapid increase in employment opportunities e.g. in the labour intensive
manufacturing sector, illiterate or poorly educated workers from the rural and
urban informal sectors would be unable to benefit from these new
opportunities. The reason for this is that even unskilled jobs in the organised
sectors require at least a primary education that these workers do not have.
(Greenhalgh et. al. 1998) found that international trade has a negative effect on
the wages of less skilled workers in the UK. (Deaton and Dreze 2002) have
noted several other recent adverse trends such as impoverishment among
specific regions or social groups, and growing uncertainty and hidden
hardships associated with recent patterns of economic changes, particularly, of
the disadvantageous section of India's unorganised segment.
15
References
Agosin, Manuel R. (1991): Trade Policy Reform and Economic Performance:
A Review of the Issues and Some Preliminary Evidence, UNCTAD Discussion
Papers No.41, UNCTAD, Geneva.
Ahmed, N. (2000): Export Responses to Trade Liberalisation in Bangladesh: A
Co Integration Analysis, Applied Economics, 32, pp. 1077-1084.
Bhalla. (2005): Earn Poor, Spend Rich: Jadu Economics. Business Standard
Online, January 22.
Dean, M., Seema D., and James R. (1994): Trade Policy Reform in Developing
Countries Since 1985: A Review of the Evidence. World Bank Discussion
Papers, 267.
Deaton, A. and J. D. Sahu. (2002): Poverty and Inequality in India: A Re-
Examination. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(36).
Goldar, B.N. and A. Kumari. (2002): Import Liberalisation and Productivity
Growth in Indian Manufacturing Industries in the 1990s: Working Paper,
E/219/2002, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi.
Greenhalgh, C , Gregory, M. and Zissimos, B. (1998): The Labor Market
Consequences of Technical and Structural Changes. Discussion Paper No. 29,
Centre for Economic Performance LSE/University of Oxford.
Grossman, G. and E. Helpman. (1995): Technology and Trade, in G. Grossman
and K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics V01.3, Amsterdam:
North Holland.
Government of India. (2001): Report of the Task Force on Employment.
Hadded, M. (1993): Hoe Trade Liberalisation Affected Productivity in
Morocco: PRE Working Paper. 1096. Policy Research Department, World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Hadded, M. J. de Melo, and B. Horton. (1996): Trade Liberalisation Exports
and Industrial Performance: Roberts, M. and J.R.Tybout, (ed.) Industrial
Evolution in Developing Countries: Micro Patterns of Turnover, Productivity
and Market Structure, Oxford University Press for The World Bank.
Jenkins, R. (1996): Trade Liberalisation and Export Performance in Bolivia:
Development and Change. 27(4), pp.693-716.
Nagaraj, R. (2005): Industrial Growth in China and India: A Preliminary
Comparison. Economic and Political Weekly 40, no. 21, May 21: 2,163-71.
Nish imizu, M. and S. Robinson. (1984): Trade Policies and Productivity
Change in Semi Industrialisation Countries: Journal of Development
Economics. Vol. 16, 117-206.
Papageorgiou A., Choksi A.M., and Michaely, M. (1990): Liberalising Foreign
Trade in Developing Countries: Washington, DC, World Bank.
17
Rodrik, D. (1992): Closing the Technology Gap: Does Trade Liberalisation
Really Help? In Helleier, G.K.(ed). Trade Policy Industrilisation and
Development: New Perspectives, Clarendron Press, Oxford.
Rodrik, D. (1997): Trade Policy and Economic Performance in Sub-Saharan
Africa, November. A Study Commissioned by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs..
Rodrik, D. (1997): Has Globalisation Gone Too Far? Washington, D.C:
Institute National Economics.
Romer, P. (1994): New Goods Old Theory and The Welfare Costs of Trade
Restrictions. Journal of Development Economics. 43, pp. 5-3 8.
Shafaeddin, S.M. (1994): The Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Export and
GDP in Least Developed Countries: UNCTAD Discussion Papers No.85,
UNCTAD, Geneva.
Thomas, V., John N., and Sebastian E. (1991): Best Practices in Trade Policy
Reform, Oxford University Press for the World Bank, Oxford.
UNCTAD. (1989): Trade and Development Report, UNCTAD, Geneva.
Weiss, J. (1992): Export Response to Trade-Reforms: Recent Mexican
Experience. Development Policy Review. 10(1), pp. 43-60.
Wignaraja, G. (1994): Trade and Industrial Policies and Experience in Sri
Lank, in Hilleiner, G.K. (ed). Trade Policy and Industrialisation in Turbulent
Times, Routledge, London and New York.
World Bank (1993). The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public
Policy. Washington, DC, Policy Research Department, World Bank.
Website Accessed
www.wikipedia.org.
www.economist.com.
www.encyclopedia.farlex.com/mixed+economy.
www.search.com/reference/Neoliberalism.
Chapter - II The Economic Liberalisation in India
The Beginning
Consequences of Economic Liberalisation
^ J
19
Chapter - II
Economic Liberalisation in India
After independence in 1947, India adhered to socialist policies. In the
1980s, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi initiated some reforms. In 1991, after the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) had bailed out the bankrupt state, the
government of P. V. Narasimha Rao and his finance minister Manmohan Singh
started breakthrough reforms. The new policies included opening of domestic
market for international trade and investment, deregulation, initiation of
privatisation, tax reforms, and inflation controlling measures. The overall
direction of liberalisation has since remained the same, irrespective of the
ruling party, although no party has yet tried to take on powerful lobbies such as
the trade unions and farmers, or contentious issues such as reforming labour
laws and reducing agricultural subsidies. Thus, economic liberalisation in India
refers to ongoing reforms that started on a large scale since 1991.
The Beginning
The germination of the seeds of economic liberalisation in India started
since the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85) was originally scheduled by the
Janata Government for the period of 1978-83, but it was actually launched after
Indira Gandhi came back into power as the Prime Minister in January 1980.
'New Industrial Growth with Direct Measures for Poverty Eradications' was
the development strategy of this Plan. Just before the Sixth Five Year Plan
document was published, a new Industrial Policy Statement was issued by Mrs.
20
Gandhi's government in July 1980. In fact, this Statement was a special effort
to stimulate and accelerate industrial growth against the background of India's
slower growth/stagnation in the industrial sphere during the late sixties and the
seventies. The Statement emphasised the necessity of a set of pragmatic
policies which will remove the lingering constraints to industrial production
and, at the same time, act as catalyst for faster growth in coming decades.
Although no special designation was given to the 'directional changes' that, the
Statement was pushing forward, but in retrospect the shift was in favour of
'liberalisation' and 'export promotion' two thrusts of the industrial policy
which came to be explicitly recognised afterwards by the government of Rajiv
Gandhi since the mid-eighties. During the regime of Mr. Gandhi, a number of
steps were taken to reform the overall industrial policy in such a way that it
could become more conducive to the promotion of competition, modernisation
and cost efficiency. The reform measures had three basic objectives, namely, to
facilitate capacity creation, to facilitate output expansion, and to remove
procedural impediments. Support for these policy reforms is also reflected in
the underlying development strategy of the Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-90)
of'Industrial Growth and Liberalisation'.
After the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi on 21 May 1991, a minority
Congress government of the Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was voted to
power in June 1991. Faced with India's foreign exchange reserves in a state of
near bankruptcy, the Rao government, while making a proposed request for a
loan of USS 2.26 billion from the IMF, succumbed to the World Bank, IMF
21
prescription in embarking on the, so called stabilisation and structural
adjustment programmes. Because the World Bank already had a ready made
report on India, 'Strategy for Trade Reform', the government, with the
initiatives taken by the then Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh, was able to
hastily introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP) in early July 1991. The NEP
can be divided into two parts: the stabilisation programmes and the structural
adjustment and reform programmes (Dutt 2002). Whilst the former part
basically aims at reducing macroeconomic imbalances (such as fiscal and
current account deficits) by restraining aggregate demand, the latter essentially
aims at increasing growth, by eliminating supply bottlenecks that hinder
competitiveness, efficiency and dynamism to the economic system.
Consequences of Economic Liberalisation
The implementation of economic liberalisation in India has impacted
both in positive and negative ways as well, as outlined below.
A. External Control
The growth of the economy has definitely been favorable so far. At the
same time Indian economy has clearly tended towards monopolies and towards
integration with the global economy. In this context following trends are
visible. Proportion of trade to Gross National Product (GNP) has gone up
steadily 14.1 percent in 1990-91 to 18.2 percent in 1998-1999. India's economy
has become increasingly interdependent on the global economy. The
remittances of Indians broad has been to the tune of 2.5 percent of GDP during
the liberalising decade compared to just 1.0 percent in the late 1980's. Prior to
22
liberalisation these remittances were declining. Indians are now one of the
major contenders in the global labour flows today. The Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) to India in 1991 was $ 200 million (0.02 percent) while US$
14.6 billion worth of FDI was approved in 1997, although the actual inflow as
just $ 3.2 billion. Even this amount was a major advance compared to the
situation prior to liberation. However, out the estimated $ 684 billion (6.84
percent) FDI flow worldwide in 1994, India's share was a pittance. Besides
most of the FDI flow in Indian so far has been directed towards the non-
manufacturing sector and for acquisition of already existing units. Along with
the rapidly increasing trade volumes, Actual FDI flows rose from around USD
300 million (0.03 percent) in 1992-93 to more than USD 3 billion (0.03
percent) in 1997-98 and reached USD 7.5 billion in the financial year 2006.
FDI as a percentage of gross capital formation increased from around 0.31 per
cent in the 1990 to 2.6 per cent in 2002. Liberalisation has facilitated Indian
companies raising resources in western stock exchanges. External debt has
become much more manageable after embracing the liberalising measures. A
healthy foreign exchange reserve has been built up of about US $ 35 billion
(0.35 percent) in 2000. Changes in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act have
removed shareholding and business restrictions. Restrictions on income
repatriation have been removed. Similarly, policies related to foreign
technology purchase and licensing have been liberalised. Following
liberalisation, Indian trade has registered a substantial increase and its foreign
exchange position has definitely improved. The manufacturing base of India,
23
however, has not seen any substantial expansion. Indian economy today has
integrated with the global economy in terms of transnational capital. The
economic reforms programme initiated by the Indian government in 1991
aimed at rapid and substantial integration of the Indian economy with the
global economy in a harmonised manner. India has opened up its market since
the beginning of the last decade of the twentieth century (especially from July
1991), by lowering tariff and Non-tariff Barriers (NTBs), and liberalising
investment policy. The Industrial Policy resolution of 1948 and subsequent
resolutions mark the beginning of the import-substitution (IS) era in India.
Although these resolutions recognised the importance of foreign capital and
technology in industrialisation, the government evolved a complex legal and
institutional control under the Foreign Exchange Restriction Act (FERA), and
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Act (MRTPA) to ensure a marginal
and highly circumscribed role of FDI in the economy. In accordance with the
tariff reforms, there has been a considerable and consistent improvement in the
trade flows as a proportion of GDP as shown in (Table No. 2.1), while trade as
a percentage of GDP increased from 15.7 per cent in 1990 to 30.8 per cent in
2002, the post reform period witnessed a marked acceleration in the growth of
both exports and imports. During the period 1970-71 to 1979-80 real export as
a ratio of GDP grew at a rate of 3.7 per cent per annum, and in the period 1990-
91 to 1998-99 the growth was around 4.6 per cent per annum (Goldar 2002).
On the other hand, real imports as a ratio of GDP grew at a rate of 1.1 per cent
24
per annum, 0.3 per cent per annum and 7.9 per cent per annum in the
corresponding periods.
Table 2.1: Trends in India's FDI and Trade Flows (1980 to 2003)
Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Year
1980
1981 1982
1983 1984
1985
1986
1987 1988
1989 1990
1991 1992
1993
1994
1995 1996 1997
1998 1999 2000
2001
2002
2003
Trade* 15.7
14.9 14.5 14 14.4
13.2
12.5
12.9 13.7 15.4 15.7
17.2
18.7 20 20.4
23.2 22.4
23 24.1
25.5 28.5 27.6
30.8
30.5
FDI** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7
Source: Wor d Development Indicators * Export & Import ** Net Inflo w
However, it is interesting to note that as the Indian economy became
more open and receptive to the world, growth of trade has been much faster
than that of FDI. The net inflow of FDI as a percentage of GDP remained less
than 1% though there has been a rapid rise in FDI inflows. The result indicates
the trade liberalisation had a favorable effect on FDI flows. It was also found
25
that the regions having greater involvement in international trade were able to
attract greater amount of FDI.
B. Internal control
Follow ing domestic impacts can be seen.
1. Growing Economy
India's compound rate of economic growth in the second half of 1980's
was 5.8 per annum. The average growth rate for 1992-98 increased to 6.5
percent per annum. Industrial growth for the period has been 8.1 percent and it
is slightly higher than 7.94 percent that prevailed in the second half 1980's.
The growth of the industry, however, has been very unsteady. The rate of
industrial growth reached a height of 12.8 percent in 1995-1996 but during
1996-1999 it has been low and unsteady. The fiscal deficit in the reform period
has remained 5.7 percent as compared to 8.8 percent of GDP in the second half
of 1980's. Inflation has been on the decline during the reform period. However
the growth of consumer index relative to the wholesale index shows that the
prices of food and other goods of mass consumption are increasing at a faster
pace affecting the weaker section. India has generally lagged behind in
Research & Development effort. Ever since India embraced the path of
liberalisation and globalisation its spending in Research & Development has
fallen. India spent 0.96 percent of its GDP on Research & Development in
1988 which came down to 0.8% in 1999. The corresponding amount is 2-3% of
the GDP for developed countries. There has been an unprecedented rise in
mergers and acquisitions in the Indian corporate sector after liberalisation.
26
After liberalisation there is more flexibility for firms to make their investment
decisions and in choosing plant capacities. Unprecedented restructuring of the
Indian industry to meet the challenges of the global market has taken place
during the last one decade. Dilution of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices (MRTP) act has removed many restrictions on corporate investments
and growth.
2. Unemployment and Poverty
Scholars in India are deeply divided into rival camps on this issue. One
group argues that unemployment and poverty have worsened following
liberalisation and the other group suggesting that it is not so. The latter argues
that either liberalisation has turned the slide or established the framework and
conditions for reduction of unemployment and poverty. The incidence of
poverty declined for all categories of workers over the first decade of
liberalisation. However the rate of decline in poverty ratios was lowest for
casual workers and it was highest for regular workers. It means less gain for
weaker section. As per NSS data, 1997, poverty in India was around 37 (rural
38 and urban 34) percent. However, the 1980s recorded a faster decline in rural
poverty and the decline slowdown considerably after the reforms. The share of
self-employed workers came down from 61.4 percent in 1972-73 to 54.8
percent in 1993-94. There was increase in the proportion of casual labourers
from 23.2 percent to 32 percent. There is a decline in the rural non-farm
employment. Casualisation of labour got accentuated with liberalisation.
Quality of employment has deteriorated on that account. Real wages for casual
27
labourers increased in 1990s but the growth has been very slow. Although rural
poverty decreased in most of the state (except Assam, Bihar, Haryana & Punjab
and Uttar Pradesh) in 1993-94 as compared to 1987-88, this decline was lower
than during the period 1983 to 1987-88-and 1977-78 to 1983. Urban poverty
showed a higher rate of decline in nine out of 17 states during 1987-88 to 1993-
94 as compared to the earlier periods. In India child labour is also on the
decline; it declined from 23 percent in 1980 to 16 percent in 1997. Educated
unemployment was declining over the time and there has been no sign of its
increase after liberalisation. However, in rural areas unemployment among
graduates, both boys and girls, has increased during the decade of
liberalisation.
3. Regional Disparities
Inequality between rich and poor states has increased during the years of
liberalisation. However, it is difficult to bracket any one of the state as rich and
poor with respect to all the indicators. However, certain states such as Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Kamataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu have consistently
remained rich. In Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kamataka, Maharashtra, West
Bengal and Punjab, Poverty started to decline under liberalisation to an
appreciable extent while there is no such decline in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh,
Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The inter-state inequalities in per capita
income increased significantly in 1990's while there was no evidence of
convergence and divergence during the period 1965-85. Rich states showed
much higher growth while poor states recorded lower growth during 1985-96.
28
4. Declining Infrastructure and Basic Industries
There has been a sharp decHne in government capital investment from
5.5 percent to 3.6 percent of the GDP from 1990-91 to 1998-99. It has led to
the relative neglect of the infrastructural sectors. The government has not
succeeded in ploughing FDI's towards the basic industries and infrastructural
sector to any significant extent. The private sector in India has not elicited
much interest in making investment in the basic industries and infrastructure.
India may not be able to sustain, alone by improving the kind of advantage that
it has enjoyed in basic industries for long.
5. Declining Social Sector
There is declining expenditure in social sectors also such as education,
health, and poverty alleviation in the liberalising decade in India. The
expenditure of central and state governments on education on the percentage of
GDP is found to have declined from 3.6 percent in 1992 to 3.4 percent in 1996-
97, showing a declining trend during this period. The worst affected has been
the sector of higher education. Even the priority sector of primary education
does not seem to have received any significantly larger allocation during the
reform period. In the states too, the overall developmental expenditure has
declined. The allocation to health sector has declined from 1.7 percent in Vll
plan (1985-89) to 1.0 percent during 1997-98. While the central government
has taken on a larger share of the social sector over the years, central assistance
to the states in these areas has declined. For instance, the share of education in
29
centrally sponsored schemes was 12.1 percent in 1991. It declined to 8.0
percent in 1997-98.
6. Affecting Employment Structure
Table 2.2: Distribution of India's Total Workers , and its Change
Sectors
Primary Sector
Secondary Sector
Tertiary Sector
Workers (%)
1971
72.10
11.20
16.70
1981
68.80
13.50
17.70
1991
66.80
12.70
20.50
2000
56.70
17.50
25.80
Change in Percentage Point
1981-1971
-3.3
+ 2.3
+ 1.0
1991-1981
-2.0
-0.80
+ 2.8
2000-1991
-10.1
+ 4.8
+ 5.3
Source: www.mpra.ub.uni.
The structural change in employment that has occurred during the
second half of 20th century provides the credence to the view that engme of
growth of the Indian economy is service sector. However, when we analyze the
sectoral distribution of the work force, the primary sector is still the largest
sector. The primary sector of the Indian economy has been continuously
absorbing the largest size of work force. The work force engaged in the
primary sector was 72.10 per cent in the 1971 and declined thereafter at a very
slow rate, but the fast declined occurred during the liberalised regime, the
change of workforce in primary sector, it was -3.3, during 1981-1971, but it
was as high as -10.1, during 2000-1991. The workforce shifted from primary
sector to secondary and tertiary sector, after 1951 but the significant increase
30
occurred during the liberalised regime. The secondary and tertiary sectors are
increasingly absorbing more workforce during the present time. It means the
primary sector or agriculture is in great loss.
Organised and Unorganised Sectors
In India, a major chunk of labor force is employed in the unorganised
sector. "The unorganised / informal employment consists of causal and
contributing family workers, self employed persons, in unorganised sector and
private households, and other employed in organised and unorganised
enterprises that are not eligible either for paid, sick or annual leave or for any
social security benefits given by the employer." According to the results of the
National Sample Survey conducted in 1999-2000, total work force as on 1.1,
2000 was of the order of 4.06 million. Only seven per cent of the total work
force is employed in the, formal or organised sector (all public sector
establishments and all non-agricultural establishments in private sector with 10
or more workers) while remaining 93% work in the informal or unorganised
sector. One of the structural indicators of employment is the extent of
organised sector employment which is dominated by the private sector. The
total organised sector employment occupies about 10 percent of the total
workers. The increase in the organised sector employment was from 15.63
lakhs in 1991 to 16.45 lakhs in 1996, which worked out to an annual growth
rate of 1.03 per cent, equivalent to 0.92 percent in five years (1991 to 1996).
After that period, a continuous decline in the organised sector employment was
witnessed. The NSS 55th round, 1999-2000 also covered non-agricultural
31
enterprises in the informal sector in India. As per that survey, there were 44.35
million enterprises and 79.71 million workers employed thereof in the non-
agricultural informal sector of the economy. Among these 25.01 million
enterprises employing 39.74 million workers were in rural areas whereas 19.34
million enterprises with 39.97 million workers in the urban area. Among the
workers engaged in the informal sector, 70.21 million are full time and 9.5
million part times. Percentage of female workers to the total workers is 20.2
percent. The Table 2.3 below describes major employment trends in the
organised and unorganised sector for the years 1983, 1987-88, 1993-94 and
1999-2000. It is evident that throughout this period a large portion of the
workforce in India is found to be employed in the unorganised sector. Out of
397million workers in 1999-2000, it is estimated that 369 million workers
(nearly 93 per cent) are employed in the unorganised segment of the economy
whereas only 28 million workers (7 per cent) are engaged in the organised
sector. The share of unorganised employment in the economy has displayed
remarkable steadiness over the years. The share of informal employment has
risen from 92 per cent (nearly 276 million out of 300 million) in 1983 to 93 per
cent in the 1999-2000. It is clear that employment opportunity in the organised
sector has remained more or less stagnant, showing only a marginal increase
from 24 million in 1983 to 28 million, in 1999-2000. The largest numbers of
informal workers are in agriculture. In fact, 98.84 percent of the employment in
agriculture is informal. In the non-agricultural sector, the highest numbers of
informal employees are in retail trade, construction, land transport, textiles etc.
32
Table 2.3: Trends in Employment Structure in India (in Million)
Labour Force
Employed
Unemployed
Employment in
Organised Sector
Employment in
Unorganised Sector
Source: www, oreanised-ai
Percentage of Total Employment
1983
3.08
3.02
0.058
0.240
2.78
id-unorganisec
1988
3.33
3.24
0.092
0.257
2.98
-labor.html
1994
3.91
3.74
0.0749
0.273
3.47
1999 - 2000
4.06
3.97
0.090
0.281
3.68
Thus, the unorganised sector plays a vital role in terms of providing
employment opportunity to a large segment of the working force in the country
and contributes to the national product significantly. The contribution of the
unorganised sector to the net domestic product and its share in the total NDP at
current prices has been over 60%. In the matter of savings the share of
household sector in the total gross domestic saving mainly unorganised sector
is about three fourth. Thus unorganised sector has a crucial role in our economy
in terms of employment and its contribution to the National Domestic Product,
savings and capital formation.
33
Labour force & Work force
Labour Force
All the active persons categorised as working (employed) and as a
seeking or available for work (or unemployed) together constitute the labour
force. Workers and unemployed together constitute the labour force.
Workforce
The International Conference on Labour Statistics therefore included
"all persons of either sex who fiimish the supply of economic goods and
services" in the work force.
The chart below describes the estimated increase in the labors force
from 1977-78 to 2004-05. The labor force has grown from 276.3 million to
385.5 million between 1977-78 andl993-94 showing an increase of 6.6
percent. During the 6 years, the workforce was estimated to be 407million.
Figure 2.1: Estimated Increase in Labour Force
-^ 600 600
i 500
^ 400
I 300
•2 200
o 100
Estimated Increase in Labour Force
—
1977-78 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05 2
Years
005-06
°]
34
Male and Female Employment
Table 2.4: Workforce Participation Rate of Male and Female in
Urban and Rural areas in India
Census
1971
1981
1991
2001
Male
Rural
53.6
53.8
52.5
52.4
Urban
48.8
49.1
48.9
50.9
Female
Rural
15.5
23.2
26.7
31.0
Urban
• 6.7
8.3
9.2
11.6
Source: NSSO.
Workforce participation rate compare to rural and urban areas of male
and female in India. However, when we analyse that, rural male in 1971 it was
53.6, in 1991 it was 52.5, and in 2001 it was 52.4, it means a slightly decline
0.1% WPR after liberalisation and rural female in 1971 it was 15.5, 1991 it
was 26.7, and 2001 it was 31.0, it mean 4% of WPR after liberalisation, urban
male in 1971 it was 48.8, inl991 it was 48.9 and in 2001 it was 50.9, it means
2% increase WPR after liberalisation and urban female in 1971 it was 6.7,
1991 it was 9.2 and 2001 it was 11.6, it mean WPR of urban female increase
2% after liberalisation period.
35
References
Dutta (2002): Effects of Globalisation on Employment and Poverty in Dualistic
Economies: The Case of India. School of Economics and Political Science
University of Sydney NSW: 2006.
Goldar, B. (2002): Trade Liberalisation and Manufacturing Employment: The
Case India. ILO 2002/34.
Website Accessed
www.egyankosh.ac.in.
www.mpra.ub.uni
http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/organised-and-unorganised-labor.html
www.linkinghub.elsevier.com.
s*
Chapter - III Literature Review
Ms ipC
36
Chapter - III
Literature Review
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to look at the work done
earHer, the impact of liberalisation on employment structure. Here some
emphasis has been given to cover the literature on various aspects of
liberalisation and employment structure in the region, which provides the
insight in selecting methodology. The measures employed by different scholars
in the particular area a help in many ways. An assessment of important works
is presented here.
Joshi (1976) argued in his study, "Surplus Labour and the City: A Study
of Bombay", that it is evident even from the statistics presented so far that
there is no clear link between globalisation and the staggering preponderance
of informal labour in India. In fact, the imbalance always existed, and the
decline in informal sector employment goes back at least to the 1960s, long
before there was any thought of liberalisation.
Minhas and Majumdar (1987), "Unemployment and Casual Labour in
India: An Analysis of Recent NSS Data", in their work described that turning
to changes over time, the unemployment rate fell between 1983 and 1987/88 by
a substantial 2.3 percentage points and remained stable until 1993/94. In the six
years to 1999/2000, it registered one percentage point increase. The proportion
of casual workers in the labour force has been increasing continuously through
37
the last three decades, apparently no more quickly in the wake of economic
reforms than before.
The World Bank (1989) an in the article "India: Poverty, Employment
and Social Services: A World Country Study", brings out that, in organised and
unorganised sectors wage inequality has generated concern for distributional
reasons. It is a widespread belief that government protection of labour and
product markets has contributed to the isolation of the factory sector from the
rigors of the market. This has generated two concerns; first, a concern with
inequality created by undeservedly high wages. Second, excessively high wage
discouraging labour demand in the organised sector.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) in its report (1989),
"Employment and Structural Change in Indian Industries", argues that, decline
of employment in organised textile sector in India was because of structural
changes resulting in product preferences, modernisation and deliberate labour
reduction by many mills to cut costs.
Van Wersch (1992) in his report, "The Bombay Textile Strike 1982-83",
revealed that employment conditions in the informal sector have not changed
significantly and indeed could hardly have got worse than they were to begin
with the formal sector, which was characterised by high levels of job
security, union density and collective bargaining up to the 1970s, suffered a
catastrophic erosion of job security from the 1980s onwards. Textile mills for
example, went through a spectacular decline in employment. It is estimated that
the Bombay Textile strike of 1982-83 was followed by the loss of roughly
38
75,000 jobs due to closures and downsizing, excluding jobs where older
workers were replaced by new recruits.
Singh (1993), Papola (1994) in their study, "New Economic Policy and
Challenges Before the Labour Economists" and "Structural Adjustment,
Labour Market Flexibility and Employment", they argued that, economic
reform will be associated with greater labour market flexibility and with a shift
towards labour intensive techniques and industries in response to an increased
openness to trade.
Fallon and Lucas (1993) in their paper, "Job Security Regulations and
the Dynamic Demand for Industrial Labour in India and Zimbabwe",
concluded, that the labour demand in the large scale industries suffered, more
as compared to the small scale units thus indicating the dependence of the
effects of regulations on the scale of operation as a notion of implement ability.
Further, even among the large scale units, the negative effect of job security
legislation on employment is low with a relatively less unionized labour force.
Nagaraj (1994) in his work, "Employment and Wages in Manufacturing
Industries: Trends, Hypotheses and Evidence", states that, it is inherently
difficult to arrive at strong conclusions about the impact of the economic
reforms as (a) they are not a controlled experiment and there is no available
counter factual (b) the reforms are still in progress and some of the adjustments
to reform may still be working themselves out, and (c) they are a package of
changes, different parts of which may have very different effects on the object
of interest (employment in this case).
39
Bhalla (1997) and Sen (1996) in their papers, "Trends in Poverty, Wages
and Employment in India" and "Economic Reforms, Employment and Poverty:
Trends and Options", explain that, the Indian in line with the share of casual
workers rising from 27 per cent in 1977/78 to 33 per cent in 1999/2000, the
share of self employment has fallen continuously from 59 per cent in 1977/78
to 53 per cent in 1999/2000. There has been a noticeable shift of workers from
rural non-farm employment to agriculture which has been attributed to
declining public expenditure in the reform period.
Business Standard (1999) an article on 12 November, "Factory Jobs
Keep Growing", appears that employment in organised manufacturing, both
private and public sector, (where the majority of formal workers would be
found) grew at a rate of 3.8 per cent per annum between 1970-71 and 1980-81,
0.53 per cent per annum between 1980-81 and 1990- 91, and 2.69 per cent per
annum between 1990-91 and 1997-98. Thus after a sharp drop in the 1980s, the
growth rate recovered somewhat in the 1990s (i.e. post liberalisation).
Goldar (2000) in his study, "Employment Growth in Organised
Manufacturing in India", employment in organised manufacturing sector grew
at 4.03 per cent per annum during the first half of the 1990s, this growth has
taken place despite the prevalence of unaltered statutory regulations impacting
on employment decisions of the firms, possibly owing to the change in the size
structure in favour of small and medium industries and the slowdown in the
growth in real wages.
40
Dev (2000) in his study, "Economic Liberalisation and Employment in
South Asia", examines the impact of economic liberalisation on employment
and labour incomes in South Asia based on a Computable General Equilibrium
(CGE) model. The results indicate a higher growth of employment in informal
and private sectors despite a jobless growth in the 1980s. This indicates that
labour rigidities have affected the employment growth. However, grovv'th rate
of organised manufacturing sector has increased in the post-reform period,
while that of the unorganised part has fallen.
Mahendra Dev. S. (2000) in his work, "Economic Liberalisation and
Employment in South Asia-I", asserted that total employment (formal and
informal) grew by 2.17 per cent per annum between 1977-78 and 1983, 1.54
per cent per annum between 1983 and 1987-88, and 2.43 per cent per annum
between 1987-88 and 1993-94.
His another estimate is that while employment growth in organised
manufacturing declined from 1.86 per cent per annum during 1978-83 to -0.45
per cent per annum during 1983-88 and recovered to 2.31 in 1988-94,
employment growth in unorganised manufacturing changed little from 3.69 per
cent per annum during 1978-83 to 3.97 per cent per annum during 1983-88,
and declined to 1.08 per cent per annum during 1988-94.
Goldar (2000) in his paper "Employment Growth in Organised
Manufacturing in India, stated that. Central Statistical Organisation (CSO), too
estimated that there was a 2.26 per cent compound annual growth of
employment in the organised manufacturing sector during the period 1992-98.
41
Economic Times (2000) an article published in "90m Working Children
in India: ILO", published on 29 April, stated that the total labour force was
314.13 million in the 1991 census while the Economic Survey 1997-98
estimated the labour force as being 397.2 million in 1997. According to the
Statistical Outline of India 1998-99, employment in the organised sector, in
millions, rose from 26.73 in 1991 to 28.25 in 1997, so the proportion of
permanent employees in the organised sector declined from 8.5 per cent to 7.1
per cent in the period 1991-97. Finally, it was estimated that organised sector
employment fell from 8 per cent of total employment in 1994 to 7 per cent m
1999-2000.
Sundaram (2001) "Employment-Unemployment Situation m the
Nineties: Some Results from NSS 55th Round Survey", finds, a dechne in the
crude worker population ratio for men and women in rural and urban areas and
in all of the age groups in the 5-59 year range.
Planning Commission (2001) in its work: "Report of the Task Force on
Employment Opportunities", suggested that, (a) the encourage growth of GDP
with an emphasis on sectors is likely to ensure the spread of income to the low
income segments of the labour force, (b) pursuit of sectoral and regional
policies consistent, with acceleration of GDP (for example, investment in
agricultural infrastructure, especially in the poorer states) and (c) special
programmes for employment and income generation amongst vulnerable
groups.
42
An article published in Economic Times (2001) "Organised Sector
Sheds Flab, but there's Work Elsewhere," on 9 May, emphasized that while
jobs in organised sector increased at an average annual rate of 0.5 per cent
during 1993-99, non-agricultural unorganised sector jobs also grew at an
average rate of 2.8 per cent per annum.
Sundaram (2001) in his paper "Employment-Unemployment Situation m
the Nineties: Some Results from NSS 55th Round Survey", the survey report
shows, a decline in both rural and urban poverty in this period. By this
criterion, there is some evidence of an improvement in the quality of
employment in the wake of economic reform.
Patel (2001) in his paper "Socio Economic Marginalisation of Displaced
Textile Mill Workers in Ahmedabad: Gujarat. India", explained that, in
Ahmedabad, textile centre, the decline started in 1982, with the closure of 50
private mills and 20 government owned mills and the loss of almost 100,000
jobs over the next fifteen years, the majority in the 1980s. Other textile centre's
like Kanpur witnessed a similar decline. The vast majority of these job losses
were not due to natural wastage or voluntary early retirement but they were
involuntary and sometimes bitterly resisted.
Goldar (2002) in his paper, "Trade Liberalisation and Manufacturing
Employmenf, explained acceleration in output growth with shifting structures
that have led to a significant step up in organised manufacturing employment
growth during the 1990s. At the sectoral level, these are largely identified to be
labour intensive export oriented industries. Even though the data does not show
43
any increase in employment in export oriented industries during trade
liberalization. The study finds an increase in employment elasticity m
manufacturing as a result of increase in the elasticity in export-oriented
industries.
Lall (2002) in his paper, "The Employment Impact of Globalisation in
Developing Countries", pointed that the employment impact of globalisation
varies across developing countries depending on their ability to cope with
liberalised trade, investment and technology flows. Further, even though trade
impacts sectoral composition of demand for labour in a significant way, it is
not often the alone factor in determining post-trade reforms employment.
Rather, a range of factors including labour market regulations, rigidities and
institutions, sector specific structure, etc. influence labour market outcomes of
developing countries to a large extent.
Rana and Ramaswamy (2003) in their work, "Trade Reforms, Labour
Regulations and Labour Demand Elasticities: Empirical Evidence from India",
asserted that a positive impact of trade liberalisation and degree of flexibility of
labour regulations across states and sectors on the labour-demand elasticity in
the Indian manufacturing sector. According to this study, the trade refonns of
1991 have positive effects on the labour demand elasticity directly and
indirectly.
Unni (2003) in his work "Labour Market Institutions in India: 1990s and
Beyond, Chapter Economic Refonns and Labour Markets in India: Organised
and Unorganised Sectors", suggests a post-reform shift of labour force from the
44
organised to unorganised sector despite an existence of positive linkages
between them.
Uchikawa (2003) in his work, "Labour Market Institutions in India:
1990s and Beyond, Chapter Employment in Manufacturing Organised Sector in
India", asserted that, though the removal of labour market rigidities that arise
from reforms in India has caused a change in the structure of the labour market.
However, this has not necessarily resulted in a decline in the employment. This
is because of the enhanced investment owing to the reduced regulations, which
might have progressive effects on employment.
Sakthivel (2003) "Economic Reforms and Jobless Growth in India in the
1990s", finds a sharp deceleration in employment growth across sectors m the
1990s. The study finds zero employment elasticity for the primary sector
during the post-reforms phase and declining elasticity for the secondary and
tertiary sectors.
Sarkar (2004) in his study, "Reforms and Employment Elasticity in
Organised Manufacturing", shows increase in organised manufacturing
employment growth in the 1990s. This is partly explained by changes in the
size structure in favour of small and medium sized factories and large!) on the
declining growth of real wages in the industrial sector.
Nagaraj (2004) in his paper, "Fall in Organised Manufacturing
Employment: A Brief Note", has found that there is widespread joblosses in
organised manufacturing accounting for about 15 per cent of the workforce
between 1995- 96 and 2000-01, 5 per cent with the exception of the tobacco,
45
textiles, chemicals and other manufacturing businesses. Such sluggish
employment growth during a period of economic reforms has been explained in
terms of a variety of reasons.
Here, I have concluded the ideas of some scholars which show that, the
implications of economic reforms for employment growth have attracted a
great deal of discussion and speculation amongst Indian scholars and policy
makers of which most have been pessimistic.
46
References
Bhalla, S. (1997): Trends in Poverty, Wages and Employment in India: The
Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Delhi, Indian Society of Labour
Economics, Vol.40, No. 2.
Bhattacharya, B. B. and S. Sakthivel (2003): Economic Reforms and Jobless
Growth in India in the 1990s. Indian Journal of Labour Economics. 46 (4):
845-865.
Business Standard, (1999): Factory Jobs Keep Growing: 12 November.
Dev, M. (2000): Economic Liberalisation and Employment in South Asia:
ZEF- Discussion Papers on Development Policy No: 29.
Dev, S. Mahendra (2000): Economic Liberalisation and Employment in South
Asia-I: Economic and political Weekly Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 8 Jan., pp.
40-51.
Economic Times, (2000): 90m working Children in India: ILO, 29 April.
Economic Times, (2001): Organised sector sheds ilab, but there's work
elsewhere, 9 May.
Fallon, P. and Lucas, R. (1993): Job Security Regulations and the Dynamic
Demand for Industrial Labour in India and Zimbabwe: Journal of Development
Economics, 40(2):241-275.
47
Goldar, B. (2000): Employment Growth in Organised Manufacturing in India:
Economic and Political Weekly, pages 191-195.
Goldar, B. N. (2002): Trade Liberalisation and Manufacturing Employment:
The Case of India. Employment Paper, 2002/34. Geneva: International Labour
Organization.
ILO-ARTEP (1989): Employment and Structural Change in Indian Industries:
A Trade Union View-point. International Labour Organization and Asian
Regional Team for Employment Promotion, New Delhi.
Joshi, H., and Joshi, V. (1976): Surplus Labour and the City: A Study of
Bombay, Oxford. University Press, New Delhi.
Lall, S. (2002): The Employment Impact of Globalisation in Developing
Countries. QEH Working Paper No. 93. Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House,
Oxford University.
Mundle, S. (1992): The Employment Effect of Stabilization and Related Policy
Changes in India: 1991-92 to 1993-94: Indian Journal of Labour Economics
Delhi, Indian Society of Labour Economics, Vol. 35, No.2, July-Sep., pp. 227-
37.
Mahendra Dev, S., (2000): Economic Reforms, Poverty, Income Distribution
and
48
Employment: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXV No. 10, 4 March,
823-35.
Mahendra Dev, S., (2000): Economic Liberalisation and Employment in South
Asia -I: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXV Nos.l&2, 8 January, 40-
51.
Mazumdar, D. and S. Sarkar. (2004): Reforms and Employment Elasticity in
Organised Manufacturing: Economic and Political Weekly. 39(27): 3017- 29.
Minhas, B.S. and Majumdar, G. (1987): Unemployment and Casual Labour in
India: An Analysis of Recent NSS Data, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
Pune, Indian School of Political Economy, 32(3).
Nagaraj, R. (1994): Employment and Wages in Manufacturing Industries:
Trends, Hypotheses and Evidence, Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai,
Sameeksha Trust, 22 Jan.
Nagaraj, R. (2004): Fall in Organized Manufacturing Employment: A Brief
Note, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(30): 3387-3390.
Rana, Hasan. Mitra, D. and Ramaswamy, K. (2003): Trade Reforms, Labour
Regulations and Labour Demand Elasticities: Empirical Evidence From India.
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No: 9879.
49
Papola, T.S. (1994): Structural Adjustment, Labour Market Flexibility and
Employment, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Delhi, Indian Society of
Labour Economics, Vol.37, No.l, Jan.-Mar., pp.3-16.
Planning Commission (2001): Report of the Task Force on Employment
Opportunities, New Delhi, Government of India, June.
Patel, B.B., (2001): Socio Economic Marginahsation of Displaced Textile Mill
Workers in Ahmedabad: Gujarat, India, Paper presented to IDPAD Workshop
on Collective Care Arrangements among Workers and Non-workers in the
Informal Sector, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad, 1-2
March.
Sundaram, K. (2001): Employment-Unemployment Situation in the Nineties:
Some Results from NSS 55th Round Surve\', Economic and Political Week!}'
Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 17 Mar., pp.931-940.
Sen, A. (1996): Economic Reforms, Employment and Poverty: Trends and
Options, Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, Vol. 31,
Nos. 35-37.
Singh, M. (1993): New Economic Policy and Challenges Before the Labour
Economists: Inaugural Address to the 34th Conference of the Indian Society of
Labour Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, in Indian Journal of Labour
Economics, Delhi, Indian Society of Labour Economics, Vol.36, No. 1.
50
Uchikawa, S. (2003). Labour Market Institutions in India: 1990s and Beyond,
Chapter Employment in Manufacturing Organised Sector in India: The Rise of
Medium Scale Units, pages 39-65. Manohar Publishers, New Delhi.
Unni, J. (2003). Labour Market Institutions in India: 1990s and beyond,
Chapter Economic Reforms and Labour Markets in India: Organised and
Unorganised Sectors, pages 65-95. Manohar Publishers, New Delhi.
Van Wersch, H., (1992): The Bombay Textile Strike 1982-83, Oxford
University Press.
World Bank (1989): India: Poverty, Employment and Social Services, A
World
Bank Country Study (Washington D.C), Chapter 4.
r
Chapter - IV Uttar Pradesh: A Geographical Outline
Physical Aspects
Social Aspects
51
Chapter - IV
Uttar Pradesh: A Geographical Outline
Uttar Pradesh is the fifth largest state of India with its capital
located at Lucknow. The state has the largest urban area and population.
It has the largest number of million plus cities. It is the most populous
state of India which supports 16.44 percent of Indian population and
9.65 percent of the area of the country.
Physical Aspects
Location
The state hes between 23°52' to 31°28'N latitudes and 77^04' to
84°38'E longitudes, enjoying the central position in northern India. It
covers an area of 2, 94,411 sq.km. of which 16.30 percent forms a hilly
tract and the remaining 83.70 percent lies in the plain region. The
northern limit of the state is demarcated by an international boundary
with China and Nepal. The southern boundary of the state runs with
Madhya Pradesh. In the northwest and west, the boundary touches the
states of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. The eastern
border runs with Bihar. The Yamuna river forms part of the western
boundary and the Gandak makes the part of the eastern boundary.
52
Location Map — Uttar Pradesh
Figure 4.1
53
Districts in Uttar Pradesh
UTTARAKHAND
DELHI Oauiam' BudiUia
HARYANA
MATHUR
RAJASTHAN
BIHAR
Miizapur rcfcadauh
JHARKHAND
CHHATTISGARH
Figure 4.2
54
Relief
The present relief of the state is not much diversified. The relief
features of the state are the resultant forms of recent structural
formations. The state has been divided into following two major
physiographic regions,
(i) Indo-Gangetic Plain
(ii) Hill and Plateau Region.
(i) Indo-Gangetic Plain
This is the core of the state, claiming more than half of the total
state's area extending form northwest to southwest. Remarkably
homogeneous in topography, this region is made up of fertile alluvial
soil deposited by the perennial rivers of Ganga, Yamuna, Ghaghara and
its tributaries. Important cities of the state are situated in these plains.
Being a fertile land throughout and with a good rainfall, this region is
one of the most populated area of the country. Climatically this region
may be divided into three parts.
(a) Eastern Plain: (Bahraich, Sravasti, Balrampur, Sidharthnagar,
Mharajganj, Kushinagar, Gonda, Basti, Sant Kabir Nagar, Gorakhpur,
Deoria, Faizabad, Sultanpur, Azamgarh, Maunath Bhanjan, Ballia,
Paratapgarh, Jaunpur, Varansi, Ghazipur, Kaushambi, St. Ravidas
Nagar, Mirzapur, Chaundauli, Allahabad, Sonbhadra.)
55
(b) Central Plain: (Lakhimpur Kheri, Sitapur, Hardoi, Unno, Lucknow,
Barabanki, Raebareli, Fatehpur, Kanpur Urban, Kanpur Rural).
(c) Western Plain: (Saharanpur, Muzafamagar,Baghpat, Meerut, Bijnor,
Ghaziabad, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Gautambudha Nagar, Buland Shahar,
Moradabad, Rampur, Bareilly, Baudan, Aligarh, Mathura, Hathras,
Eath, Farrukhabad, Shahjahanpur, Pillibhit, Manipuri, Firozabad, Agra,
Etawah, Kannauj, Auraiya.)
The eastern plain comprises the districts of Gorakhpur, Basti,
Gonda, Bahraich, Deoria, Ghazipur, Varanasi, Ballia, Jaunpur, Bhadohi
and Azamgarh. The climate of the area is damp with rainfall ranging
between 100 and 150 cm. This is the most populous area but as
compared with central and western plains; it is industrially backward.
The central plain has a soothing climate and moderate rainfall. Ihe
districts of this plain are Kanpur, Lucknow, Allahabad, Faizabad,
Barabanki, Pratapgarh, Unnao, Sultanpur, Fatehpur. Rai Bercli, Sitapur
and Hardoi. This region is more advanced economically than the eastern
plain region. Out of the five bog cities - the (KAVAL) towns, three are
located in this region. These cities are Kanpur, Lucknow and Allahbad.
The western zone is comparatively an area of poor rainfall (0-50 cm). It
is most developed part of Ganga Plain. Agra, the third biggest city of
the state is situated in this region. Other important cities like Meerut,
Moradabad, Aligarh, Bareilly, Mathura and Saharanpur are also situated
')^x ^IIS
56
in this region. Industrially, commercially, and culturally this is the most
advanced region of the state.
(ii) Hill and Plateau Region: (Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur, Hamirpur,
Mahoba, Banda, Chittrakut)
On the Southern extreme of the state the region is marked by east-
west trends of low rounded hills. These hills generally remain dry as the
annual rainfall in very poor and scattered. As a result the area is not
important for agricultural purposes. Ravines and barren lands are the
characteristics features of the area. The district of Mirzapur lies m the
southeast, in the southwest are the district of Banda, Jalaun, Jhansi,
Lalitpur and Hamirpur. The region is backward both agriculturally and
industrially. However, some mineral deposits are found in considerable
amount.
Drainage
Uttar Pradesh has a very well established drainage system. The
general slope of the land is form west-northwest to east-southeast with
the exception of right bank tributaries of Yamuna. Almost all other
rivers of the state rising in the Himalayas flow from west to east. Except
Ghaghara which flow more or less in straight course, all other rivers
have a tendency to flow in sinuous courses across the plain forming
'meanders' and 'ox-bow' lakes. The principal rivers of the state are
Ganga, Yamuna, Ghaghara, Gomti and Ramganga in the north and
Chambal, Sindh, Betwa, Sone and Ken in the south-west. The
57
Himalayan rivers are more active than those coming from the Vindhyan
range in filHng up the great plain with silt, and they also provide more
important sources if irrigation and power since they have perennial
supplies of water from monsoon rainfall supplemented by snow melts.
Climate and Natural Vegetation
The climate of state on the whole is healthy, except the swampy
tract of the Tarai. The entire state has tropical monsoon climate, except
the Himalayan region, where the climate may be designated as
temperate. It is characterised by a rhythm of seasons which is caused by
the southwest and northeast monsoons. Taking into consideration the
temperature and precipitation, the whole year is divisible into three
distinct seasons.
(i) The cold weather season (November to February)
(ii) The hot weather season (March to Mid-June)
(iii) The rainy season (Mid-June to October)
(i) The Cold Weather Seasons
During the month of November a high pressure beh extends from
northwestern India and covers the whole of the Ganga valley. The
prevailing direction of the wind is from west to east. The temperature
starts decreasing and reaches up to 2°-3°C in December and January.
The month of January is the coldest month of the year ad records lowest
temperature conditions accompanied by mist and fog known as kohra
58
which often reduces the visibihty to almost nil. February is generally the
month of clear sky with increasing temperature. The rainfall through
small in quantity is highly beneficial to the winter crops, as it comes at a time
when the plants are flowerings. It ranges from 180 mm. at Nainital in the
northwest and north to 38 mm. at Deoria in the east,
(ii) The Hot Weather Season
Severe hot and dry weather conditions mark the summer season
beginning from March. The mercury shows a tendency to rise abruptly m
May-June, when temperature as high as 40° to 45°C may be recorded.
The month of May and half of June is the period of intense hot dry west
winds, locally known as 'Loo'. The occurrence of dust storms locally
known as Andhi forms a significant feature of the season. These storms
are short lived and frequently end up in the light shov^'ers of rain. The
total average rainfall in hot weather season is small. It ranges from
100mm at the northern station of state to 20mm at some of the stations
in the extreme southwest. The amount of rainfall decreases from east to
west due to the increasing distance from the sea as the air gets
progressively drier. Rainfall received during hot weather season gives
temporary relief from the heat and helps in the sowing of early rice
crop.
59
(iii) The Rainy Season
With the monsoon burst that normally starts from the middle of
June and lasts till October a complete change in the weather is brought
about with the immediate fall in the temperature and upward trend m
humanity. Nearly 85 to 90 percent of the annual precipitation is received
during these months (June to October). However, July and August-are
the rainiest months of the year. The rainfall is heaviest in the Himalayan
region and decreases as one go from north to south and from east to
west. On an average the Himalayan region experiences rainfall from
140 to 200 cms. In the sub Himalayan belts the rainfall exceeds 120
cms. The western part of the Ganga Plain has an average rainfall of 60-
100 cms., while the eastern part of the plain receives from 100 to 120
cms, the southern hills receive from 100 to 120 cms., annually. Rainy
season is marked by high percentage (80 percent) relative humidity.
October is the month of retreating monsoon, the mean maximum
temperature remains as high as in September. Rainfall through little, is
useful for the rabi crops and for maturity of late rice. The monsoon
climate and fertile soil help to grow the luxurious vegetation particularly
in the Tarai region of Himalayan foothills. The natural vegetation in the
plains such as Dhak (Butea frondosa), Bargad (Banyan) and, Neem
(Margosa) are planted according to choice. Babul (Acacia) is \er>
common in western Uttar Pradesh. Due to increased inigation facilities
and pressures of fast growing population, more and more land is being
60
taken under cultivation. As a result, some of the good forests have
actually submerged and disappeared.
Soil
Soil constitutes the natural medium which supports the growth of
plants on the earth's surface. On the basis of texture, colour, availability
of water and the level of land, the soils of the state are classified. A
wide range of soils both of residual and alluvial origin are found within
the state. A major part of the state is occupied by the alluvial soils. The
soil may be broadly classified into;
i) Forest or Hill Soils
ii) Alluvial Soil
iii) Mixed Red and Black Soil
The hill soils are found in the northern mountainous regions and in
the foothills. They are mostly red loan, brown, podsol and meadow soil.
The soils found in the sub-montane tract are pebbly and porous, which
are rich in organic matter. The Bhabur and Tarai soil are mostly
swampy. Alluvial soil is the biggest and most extensive soil formation
in the state, claiming 61.78 percent in its total area. These soils have
developed from the alluvium deposited by the rivers Ganga and
Yamuna and other tributaries mainly the Ghaghara, the Gandak, the
Gomti and the Ramganaga. The best of the new alluvium is called
Khaddar and the older one Bhangar. As regards the fertility situation of
the alluvial soils, it is highly productive, giving adequate response to
high yielding varieties and fertilizers. The mixed red or black soils
61
characterise the southern plateau region. These soils are adhesive and
calcareous as they are developed from stony bases. Due to poor soil,
coupled with scarcity of water, agriculture is in bad shape in this soil
zone. Except in the black soil which is often devoted to rabi crops, the
remaining soil types are used in kharif season only for producing javvar,
small millets and tills which happen to be the principal crops.
Social Aspects
Uttar Pradesh is one of the most important states from the view
point of population and area but economically it is a backward state.
The progress in the various sectors of the economy has been so poor
that it has remained more than one plan behind the all India progress.
Both agriculturally, in which more than 75 percent population is
engaged, as well as industrially the state is backward. Similarly, the
progress in the field of various social and economic overheads has been
so inadequate that it has failed in meeting even barest infrastructural
requirement of the economy. A brief survey of resources has been given
in the following heads.
62
Population
Population is wealth of a nation or state. Due to wide spread plain
with fertile soil and good rainfall, the state of Uttar Pradesh has a
sizeable population and high population density. It ranks first among the
states of Indian union in terms of population. According to 1991 census
the total population of the state is 139 million which is 16.4 percent of
the total population of India. The rural population of the state is 80.16
percent and engaged in primary activities basically in agriculture. The
urban population of the state is 19.84 percent. The population density is
473 persons per square kilometer. The percentage of literate is 41.7
which accounts for about 13 percent of the total literate population of
India. The male and female literates are 55.4 and 26.0 percent
respectively.
Population is amounted to a total of 166,052,859 according to the
results of the last held census in 2001. Uttar Pradesh is by far the most
populated state in India, despite the creation of the state of Uttarkhand
from within it. The decadal variation rate of Uttar Pradesh population
has settled close to a growth of 25 percent over the last two census
reports. That shows a growth rate that is marginally higher than the
national average. The density of population is also high at 473 people
per square km. as against the national average of 274. However, the
brighter side of the picture is that the sex ratio as well as the literacy rate
has considerably improved from last held census.
63
Table 4.1: Trends in Population Growth in Uttar Pradesh &
India
Years
1901
1911
1921
1931
1941
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
Population
(in crores)
U.P.
4.86
4.82
4.67
4.98
5.65
6.32
7.37
8.83
11.08
13.91
16.60
India
23.83
25.20
25.13
27.89
31.86
36.10
43.92
54.81
68.38
84.63
102.70
Decadal Growth
Rate (in percent)
U.P.
-
-0.8
-3.1
6.6
13.5
11.8
16.6
19.8
25.5
25.5
25.8
India
-
5.7
-0.3
11.0
14.2
13.3
21.5
24.8
23.8
23.8
21.34
Percentage
Share of
India's
Population
U.P.
20.4
19.1
18.5
17.8
17.7
16.7
16.1
16.1
16.44
16.44
16.2
Sources: National Commission Agenda, 2001,
E c o n o m y
Uttar Pradesh has an economy that is well divided between
industrialisation and agriculture. At the same time the per capita income
rate is also lower than most other states of India. Most of the
occupational groups within the population of Uttar Pradesh are invoked
in agricultural, which contribute to 41 percent of the state 's economy.
Skilled laborers are sought after m the urban centers of the state which
64
are experiencing a tremendous growth specially in the information
technology and the telecommunication sector
Table 4.2: Sector Wise Share of GDP (%) in Uttar Pradesh
Percentage Distribution of GSDP of Uttar Pradesh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Primary
35.5
35.2
34.6
33.8
33.2
32.1
31.8
31.2
Secondary
21.8
21.1
20.1
20.3
20.2
20.6
21.7
21.9
Tertiary
42.8
43.7
45.3
45.8
46.5
47.3
46.5
46.8
Sources: www.upgov.nic Q-Quick Estimates P-Provisional Estimates
Looking at the figures shown in above tables, it is noticed that the
sectoral composition of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP), in Uttar
Pradesh, in the year 1999-00 was 35.5, 21.8 and 42.8 percent for the primary,
the secondary and the tertiary sectors respectively, while the coixesponding all
India figures were 27.3, 23.0 & 49.7 percent. In the year 2006-07, the
corresponding figures of Uttar Pradesh, are 31.2, 21.9 and 46.8 percent whereas
for India, they are 21.0, 26.6 and 52.4 percent.
65
Figure 4.3: Distribution of GSDP of Uttar Pradesh
I
Percentage Distribution of GSDP of Uttar Pradesh
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
—
—
1
nteiitary
• secondary
Bprimafy
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2 0 0 3 ^ 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
year
The above table shows that in Uttar Pradesh, the shares of primary and
tertiary sectors in 1999-2000 were 35.5 and 42.8 percent respectively, and the
share of secondary sector was 21.8 percent. In 2006-07 (Q) the tertiary sector
surged ahead and reached 46.8 percent while the share of secondary sector
remained same i.e. nearly 22 percent. At all India level the tertiary sector share
was nearly 50 percent and primary sector share was 27.3 percent in 1999-00
and in the year 2006-07 tertiary sector share has risen to 52.4 percent and
primary sector share has fallen to 21.0 percent. This analysis depicts that in
Uttar Pradesh, as in die case of India the tertiary sector is growing in the same
direction. However, primary sector is still a dominant sector in Uttar Pradesh.
66
Urbanisation
The pace of urbanisation has been lower in the state. The level of
urbanisation has been lower than most other states. The numbers of
urban centers with more than one lakh population have grown slov/ly
over last thirty years. The growth of urban centers with population less
than five thousand have, on the other hand, have grown more
significantly and these centers have grown in larger numbers in the
western part of the states.
67
Table 4.3: Trends of Urbanisation in India
Census
Year
1901
1911
1921
1931
1941
1951
1061
1971
1981
1991
2001
Sources: C
Total Urban
Population
5223025
4720939
4728727
5354962
6749767
8225068
8983900
11653740
18740079
25971891
34512624
Census of India, 2001.
% of Urban
Population
11.20
10.26
10.61
11.28
12.52
13.65
12.81
13.90
17.83
19.68
20.78
Jttar Pradesh.
Decadal
Growth
-
-9.61
0.16
13.24
26.06
21.86
9.23
29.72
60.89
38.52
32.88
Annual
Growth
-
-1.01
0.02
1.24
2.31
2.31
0.88
2.60
4.76
3.26
2.84
68
References
Ahmad, H. (1995). Regional Disparities in the Levels of Education in Uttar
Pradesh. DS. 2760. Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh. (INDIA).
Website Accessed
www.mapsofindia.com/iittar-pradesh.
www.indianetzone.com/uttar-pradesh.
www.upgov.nic/upinfo/up_eco.htm].
www.ibef.org.
i
Chapter - V Impact of Economic Liberalisation on
Employment Structure in Uttar Pradesh: j
An Analysis
Trends of Employment Change in Three
Sectors of the Economy
Correlation Technique
Conclusion
J
69
Chapter- V
Impact of Economic Liberalisation on Employment
Structure in Uttar Pradesh: An Analysis
Employment is clearly one of the most significant issues in terms
of the living conditions, of the people of Uttar Pradesh today. Quite
simple, there are not enough jobs for all the people who are wiling or
forced to work. The rate of employment generation in terms of
aggregate main work has been lower than the rate of expansion of the
population, and substantially lower than the rate of income growth. As
a result, the pattern of job creation has inclined towards more casual,
marginal, part time and insecure contracts or self-employment. This
pattern has increased following the adoption of liberal policies.
The analysis of this chapter, 'The impact of economic
liberalisation on employment structure in Uttar Pradesh', has made a
link of liberalisation and employment, the analysis show that level and
quality of employment is strongly dependent on the level of economic growth.
Employment is a key determinant of economic welfare and levels of
development .In addition, the impact of economic liberalisation on the level
and structure of employment is also an important determinant of its impact on
poverty, wage and income distribution, and on the quality of employment.
70
Table 5.1: Distribution of Worliforce across Sectors and its
Change in Uttar Pradesh
Sectors
Primary Sector
Secondary Sector
Tertiary Sector
Total Percentage
1981 (%)
74.9
9.5
14.9
1991 (%)
74.46
8.8
17.00
2001 (%)
66.24
5.67
27.4
Change (Percentage Point)
1991-1981
-0.4
-0.6
+2.1
2000-1991
-8.22
-3.13
+ 10.4
Source: Various Census Reports
The analysis shows with the help of above table 5.1 that before
liberalisation the distribution of workforce engaged in primary sector in 1981
was 74.9 and in 1991, it was 74.46, the change shows a declining trend from
1981 to 1991, which is -0.4 percentage points. Like wise, in secondary sector
workforce engaged in 1981 is 9.5, in 1991, 8.8; the change shows the
secondary sector has also declined from 1981 to 1991 which is -0.6 percentage
points. The third sector is tertiary sector where workforce rises, from 1981 to
1991, which is from 14.9 percent to 17.00 percent. The change shows the
increase of + 2.1 p.p. Before liberalisation the rate was lower in primary sector
and higher in secondary and tertiary sector. After liberalisation workforce of
primary sector declined 66.24 percent from 1991 to 2001, but primary and
secondary sectors have declined. The primary sector is in great loss. It clearly
shows that after liberalisation tertiary sector rises at higher rate and both
primary sector and secondary sector have shown negative growth table 5.1
71
which particularly have significant impact on the primary sector of economy.
The secondary sector has been affected less than half of the primary sectors.
The tertiary sector has gained fairly. Let us see the position at district level in
each of these three sectors of economy.
Trends of Employment Change in Three Sectors of the Economy
Trend of Employment Change in Primary Sector 1991-2001
1. Primary Sector:
The primary sector of the economy extracts or harvests products from
the earth. The primary sector includes the production of raw material and basic
food items. Activities associated with the primary sector include agriculture
both subsistence and commercial, mining, forestry, farming, grazing, hunting
and gathering, fishing, and quarrying. In Uttar Pradesh economic viability goes
in loss in primary sector, due to the shifting of workforce from primary sector
to secondary and tertiary sector.
Table 5.2: Loss of Primary Activities
Categories
Very High (-40.0 and above) High (- 30.0 — .40.0)
Medium (. 20.0 — -
30.0)
Name of District's and their Percentage Point
Nil.
Aligarh (-32.65), Banda (-37.89).
Varansi (-20.35).
72
Low
(-10.0 — -
20.0)
Very Low (<than 10.0)
Shaharanpur (-12.22), Muzaffamagar (-10.46),
Moradabad (-12.52), Meerut (-18.74), Ghaziabad (-
15.59), Bulandshar (-15.8), Firozabad (-13.84), Etawah
(-10.81), Kanpumagar (-12.67), Allahabad (12.84),
Sultanpur (-10.14), Deoria (-10.72).
Mathura (-7.73), Agra (-8.01), Etah (-7.3), Mainpun (-
2.93), Budaun (-7.78), Bareilly(-9.48), Pilibhit (-9.22),
Shahjanpur (-7.66), Kheri(-8.59), Sitapur (-6.6), Hardoi
(-7.38), Unno (-7.24), Lucknow (-8.42), Raebareii{-
4.15), Farukhabad (-9.26), Jalaun (-4.37), Jhansi (-2.7),
Lalitpur (-2.93), Hamirpur(-6.38), Fatehpur (-5.13),
Pratapgarh (-6.04), Barabanki (-5.82), Faizabad( -4.49),
Bahraich (-5.33), Gonda (-4.89), Basti (-5 18),
Maharajganj (-4.8), Gorakhpur (-6.12), Azamgarh (-
7.27), Mau (-8.54), Ballia (-9.48), Jaunpur(-4.6),
Ghazipur(-7.82), Mirzapur (-4.55), Sonbhadra (-5.8).
Result: Negative or loss.
73
Uttar Pradesh - Loss of Primary Activities,( 1991-2001)
fig I (-10 0 — -20 0)
Very Low (<tli»n 10 0)
Fig. 5.1
74
Table 5.2 & Figure 5.1 shows the loss in primary activities in Uttar
Pradesh due to the shifting of workforce from primary sector to secondary and
tertiary sector. All districts of Uttar Pradesh are categorised in to five levels.
Name of the district that include in first level very high loss (- 40.0 and above)
nil or no district has found, the district that include in second level high loss (-
30.0 to -40.0) Aligarh (-32.65), Banda (-37.89), the district that include in third
level medium loss (-20.0 to -30.0) Varansi (-20.35), the district that include in
forth level low loss (- 10.0 and -20.0) Shaharanpur (-12.22), Muzaffamagar (-
10.46), Moradabad (-12.52), Meerut (-18.74), Ghaziabad (-15.59), Bulandshar
(-15.8), Firozabad (-13.84), Etawah (-10.81), Kanpumagar (-12.67), Allahabad
(12.84), Sultanpur (-10.14), Deoria (-10.72), the district that include in fifth
level very low loss (< than -10.0) Mathura (-7.73), Agra (-8.01), Etah (-7.3),
Mainpuri (-2.93), Budaun (-7.78), Bareilly(-9.48), Pilibhit (-9.22), Shahjanpur
(-7.66), Kheri(-8.59), Sitapur (-6.6), Hardoi (-7.38), Unno (-7.24), Lucknow (-
8.42), Raebareli(-4.15), Farukhabad (-9.26), Jalaun (-4.37), Jhansi (-2.7),
Lalitpur (-2.93), Hamirpur(-6.38), Fatehpur (-5.13), Pratapgarh (-6.04),
Barabanki (-5.82), Faizabad( -4.49), Bahraich (-5.33), Gonda (-4.89), Basti (-
5.18), Maharajganj (-4.8), Gorakhpur (-6.12), Azamgarh (-7.27), Mau (-8.54),
Ballia (-9.48), Jaunpur(-4.6), Ghazipur(-7.82), Mirzapur (-4.55), Sonbhadra (-
5.8). Finally, the result shows negative or loss that primary sector workforce
level goes in loss in Uttar Pradesh due to the shifting of workforce level.
75
Trend of Employment Change in Secondary Sector 1991-2001
2. Secondary Sector:
The secondary sector of the economy manufactures finished goods. All of
manufacturing, processing, and construction lies within the secondary sector.
Activities associated with the secondary sector include metal working and
smelting, automobile production, textile production, chemical and engineering
industries, aerospace manufacturing, energy utilities, engineering, breweries
and bottlers, construction, and shipbuilding. In Uttar Pradesh economic
viability also goes in loss in secondary sector, but the loss of secondary sector
is less than to primary sector.
Table 5.3: Loss of Secondary Activities
Categories
Very High (-20.0 and above)
High (-10.0 — - - 20.0)
Medium (0.0 -10.0)
Name of District's and their Percentage Point
Kanpumagar (-22.29).
Meerut (-12.45), Ghaziabad (-19.4), Agra (-13.49),
Firozabad(-14. 53).
Shahranpur (-8.51), Muzaffamagar (-7.79), Bijnor (-
7.9), Moradabad(-7.5), Rampur (-3.8), Bulandshar (-
4.36), Aligarh (-6.29), Mathura (-5.99), Etah (-0.62).
Mainpuri (-1.19), Budaun (-0.02), Bareilly (-3.29).
Pilibhit(-2.41), Shahjanpur(-].36), Unno (-1.31).
76
Low (+10.0 — 0.0)
Very Low ( > — ' +10.0)
lucknow (-9.0), Raebareli (-L56), Etawah (-1.24),
Kanpurdehat (-1.31), Jalaun (-1.27), Jhansi (-5.3),
Lalitpur (-1.95), Hamirpur (-2.27), Banda (-0.74),
Fatehpur (-0.65), Faizabad(1.89), Bahraich (-0.86),
Gonda ( -0.04), Basti (-0.92), Gorakhpur(-2.08), Deoria
(-0.82), Jaunpur (-0.4), Varansi (-3.71), Mirzapur (-
7.43).
Kheri (+1.08), Sitapur (+0.4), Hardoi (+1.75),
Farukhabad (+0.64), Paratapgarh(+0.57), Allahabad
(+0.59), Barabanki (+0.86), Siddharthanagar (+0.6).
Azamgarh (+0.31), Ballia (+1.02), Ghazipur (+0.87),
Sonbhadra(+5.77).
Nil.
Result: Again Negative or loss.
77
Uttar Pradesh- Loss of Secondary Activities,( 1991-2001)
Fig 2
Fig. 5.2
78
Table 5.3 & Figure 5.2 shows the moderate loss in secondary activities
in Uttar Pradesh due to the shifting of workforce from secondary sector to
tertiary sector. All districts of Uttar Pradesh are categorised in to five levels.
Name of the district that include in first level very high loss (- 20.0 and above)
Kanpumagar (-22.29), the district that include in second level high loss (-10.0
to -20.0) Meerut (-12.45), Ghaziabad (-19.4), Agra (-13.49), Firozabad (-14.
53), the district that include in third level medium loss (0.0 to -10.0)
Shahranpur(-8.51), Muzaffamagar(-7.79), Bijnor (-7.9), Moradabad(-7.5),
Rampur(-3.8), Bulandshar (-4.36), Aligarh (-6.29), Mathura (-5.99), Etah (-
0.62), Mainpuri (-1.19), Budaun (-0.02), Bareilly (-3.29), Pilibhit(-2.4I)
Shahranpur (-8.51), Muzaffamagar (-7.79), Bijnor (-7.9), Moradabad(-7.5),
Rampur (-3.8), Bulandshar (-4.36), Aligarh (-6.29), Mathura (-5.99). Etah (-
0.62), Mainpuri (-1.19), Budaun (-0.02), Bareilly (-3.29), Pilibhit(-2.41),
Shahjanpur(-1.36), Unno (-1.31), lucknow (-9.0), Raebareli (-1.56), Etawah (-
1.24), Kanpurdehat (-1.31), Jalaun (-1.27), Jhansi (-5.3), Lalitpur (-1.95),
Hamirpur (-2.27), Banda (-0.74), Fatehpur (-0.65), Faizabad(1.89), Bahraich (-
0.86), Gonda ( -0.04), Basti (-0.92), Gorakhpur(-2.08), Deoria (-0.82), Jaunpur
(-0.4), Varansi (-3.71), Mirzapur (-7.43), the district that include in forth level
low loss (+10.0 to 0.0) Kheri (+1.08), Sitapur (+0.4), Hardoi (^1.75),
Farukhabad (+0.64), Paratapgarh(+0.57), Allahabad (+0.59), Barabanki
(+0.86), Siddharthanagar (+0.6), Azamgarh (+0.31), Ballia (+1.02), Ghazipur
(+0.87), Sonbhadra(+5.77) the district that include in fifth level very low loss
(> than +10.0) nil or no district has found. Finally, the result shows moderately
79
negative or loss that secondary sector workforce level goes in loss in Uttar
Pradesh due to the shifting of workforce level.
Trend of Employment Change in Tertiary Sector 1991-2001
Tertiary Sector:
The tertiary sector of the economy is the service industry. This sector
provides services to the general population and to businesses Activities
associated with this sector include retail and wholesale sales, transportation and
distribution, entertainment, movies, television, radio, music, theater, etc ,
restaurants, clerical services, media, tourism, insurance, banking, Healthcaie,
and law. In Uttar Pradesh economic viability goes m gain in tertiary sector,
there are many new opportunities open in tertiary sector
Table 5.4: Gain in Tertiary Activities
Categories
Very High (+40.0 and above)
High (+30.0 — +40.0)
Medium (+20.0 — +30.0)
Name of District's and their Percentage Point
Nil
Meerut (+31.09), Ghaziabad (+34.28).
Shahranpur (+28 22), Moradabad (+20 01),Bulandshdr
(+20 17), Agra (+20 87), Firozabad(+28 38), Varansi
(+23.96)
80
Low (+10.0 - -+20.0)
Very Lo>v( < — +10.0)
Muzaffamagar (+18.69), Moradabad (+20.01), Rampur
(+10.98), Aligarh (+18.94), Mathura (+13.71), Budaun
(+11.81), Bareilly (+12.77), Pilibhit (+11.63), Lucknow
(+17.47), Etawah (+12.05), Allahabad (12.26), Deoria
(+11.21), Mirzapur (+11.98), Sonbhadra (+11.77).
Etah (+7.81), Mainpuri (+4.12), Shahjahanpur (+9.02),
Kheri (+7.61), Sitapur (+6.13), Hardoi (+5.63), Unno
(+8.41), Raebareli (+5.71), Farukhabad (+8.62),
Kanpurdehat (+8.69), Kanpumagar (+9.48), Jalaun
(+5.64), Jhansi (+8.1), Lalitpur (+4.58), Hamirpur
(+8.65), Banda (+8.53), Fatehpur (+5.73), Pratapgarh
(+5.38), Barabanki (+4.93), Faizabad (+6.38), Sultanpur
(+8.18), Bahraich (+6.09), Gonda (-4.93),
Siddharthanagar (+3.29), Basti (+6.0), Maharajganj
(+3.72), Gorakhpur (+8.21), Azamgarh (+6.96), Mau
(+8.25), Ballia (+8.46), Jaunpur (+4.9), Ghazipur
(+6.95).
Result: Positive or gain.
81
Uttar Pradesh - Gain in Tertiary Activities, (1991-2001)
Fig l
Very Low (<
Fig. 5.3
82
Table 5.4 & Figure 5.3 shows the gain in tertiary activities in Uttar
Pradesh due to the shifting of workforce from other sector to tertiary sector. All
districts of Uttar Pradesh are categoried in to five levels. Name of the district
that include in first level very high gain (+40.0 and above) nil or no district has
found, the district that include in second level high gain (+30.0 to +40.0)
Meerut (+31.09), Ghaziabad (+34.28), the district that include in third level
medium gain (+20.0 to +30.0) Shahranpur (+28.22), Moradabad
(+20.01),Bulandshar (+20.17), Agra (+20.87), Firozabad(+28.38), Varansi
(+23.96), the district that include in forth level low gain (+10.0 to +20.0)
Muzaffamagar (+18.69), Moradabad (+20.01), Rampur (+10.98), Aligarh
(+18.94), Mathura (+13.71), Budaun (+11.81), Bareilly (+12.77), Pilibhit
(+11.63), Lucknow (+17.47), Etawah (+12.05), Allahabad (12.26), Deoria
(+11.21), Mirzapur (+11.98), Sonbhadra (+11.77). the district that include in
fifth level very low gain (< than +10.0) Etah (+7.81), Mainpuri (-^4.12).
Shahjahanpur (+9.02), Kheri (+7.61), Sitapur (+6.13), Hardoi (+5.63), Unno
(+8.41), Raebareli (+5.71), Farukhabad (+8.62), Kanpurdehat (+8.69),
Kanpumagar (+9.48), Jalaun (+5.64), Jhansi (+8.1), Lalitpur (+4.58), Hamirpur
(+8.65), Banda (+8.53), Fatehpur (+5.73), Pratapgarh (+5.38), Barabanki
(+4.93), Faizabad (+6.38), Sultanpur (+8.18), Bahraich (+6.09), Gonda (+4.93),
Siddharthanagar (+3.29), Basti (+6.0), Maharajganj (+3.72), Gorakhpur
(+8.21), Azamgarh (+6.96), Mau (+8.25), Ballia (+8.46), Jaunpur (+4.9),
Ghazipur (+6.95). Finally, the result shows positive or gain that tertiary sector
83
workforce level goes in gain in Uttar Pradesh due to the shifting of workforce
level.
Per Capita Income of India and Uttar Pradesh
Income levels are an important determinant of the economic well being
and social development. In terms of per capita income, Uttar Pradesh is among
the 'low income category' states along with Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.
Moreover, due to sluggish economic growth in Uttar Pradesh, the gap in per
capita income of the state and that of the country has been increasing. The state
economy is also characterised by sharp differences in per capita income levels
across different regions and districts of the state.
Table 5.5: Per Capita Income of India and Uttar Pradesh (Rs.)
State
Uttar
Pradesh
India
1993-94
5066
7690
1996-97
7476
11564
2000-01
9162
16555
2003-04
10817
20989
Source: sampark.chd.nic.
84
Table 5.6: District wise Per Capita Income of Uttar Pradesh,
1997-98 (Rs.)
S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Districts
Shahranpur
Muzaffarnagar
Bijnor
Moradabad
Rampur
J. P. Nagar
Meerut
Baghpat
Ghaziabad
G. B. Nagar
Bulandshar
Kheri
Sitapur
Hardoi
Unno
Lucknow
Raebareli
Farukhabad
Kannauj
All
Sectors
11256
11064
10832
8568
8725
13200
18064
10601
8642
6961
5997
6358
11232
5906
7353
S.No.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Districts
Aligarh
Hathras
Mathura
Agra
Firozabad
Etah
Mainpuri
Budaun
Bareilly
Pilibhit
Shahjahanpur
Fatehpur
Pratapgarh
Kaushambi
Allahabad
Barabanki
Faizabad
A. Nagar
Sultanpur
All
Sectors
9467
9064
10053
7173
8500
7003
6801
9145
9403
8811
7216
4961
13202
7245
6267
6059
8061
85
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
61
62
63
64
65
Etawah
Auraiya
Kanpurdehat
Kanpurnagar
Jaiaun
Jhansi
Lalitpur
Hamirpur
Mahoba
Banda
Chitrakot
Azamgarh
Mau
Baliia
Jaunpur
Ghazipur
6177
5993
5993
6847
10424
8700
8353
6577
6517
5132
6575
4426
5142
4797
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
66
67
68
69
70
Bahraich
Sharwasti
Balrampur
Gonda
Siddharthanagar
Basti
Sant K. Nagar
Maharajganj
Gorakhpur
Kushinagar
Deoria
Chandauli
Varanasi
Sant Ravidas
Mirzapur
Sonbhadra
4301
7081
4250
5099
5957
5693
5411
4316
10651
5802
6688
15310
Source: Human Development Report (2003)
Table 5.7: Distribution of Per Capita Income
Categories
Very High (18064 and above)
Name of District's and tlieir Percentage Point
Ghaziabad (18064).
86
High (15000 — 18064)
Medium (10000 15000)
Sonbhadra (15310).
Meerut (13200), Agra (10053), Bijnor (10832),
Buladshar (10601), Lucknow (11232), Muzaffamagar
(11064), Shahranpur (11256), Faizabad (6059), varansi
(10651), Jhansi (10424).
Low (5000 10000)
Very Low ( 4797 — 5000)
Firozabad (7173), Mainpuri (7003), Mathra (9064),
Moradabad (8568), Aligarh (9467), Bareilley (9145),
Badaun (6801), Etah (8500), Etawah (6177),
Farukhabad (7353), Unno (6358), Raebareli (5906).
Sitapur (6961), Pilibhit (9403), Rampur (8725),
Shahjahanpur (8811), Barabanki (6267), Fatehpur
(7216), Hardoi (5997), Kanpur (5993), Khaeri (8642),
Mirzapur (6688), Sultanpur (8061), Allahabad (7245),
Azamgarh (5132), Basti (5099),Faizabad (6059),
Gorakhpur (5693), Gonda (7081), Kaushambi (13202),
Maharajganj (5957), Mau (6575), S.R.Nagar (5802).
Banda (6517), Hamirpur (8353), Jalaun (6847), Mahoba
(6577), Lalitpur (8700). Jaunpur(5142), Kaushinagar
(5411).
Praptapgarh (4961), Bahraich (4301), Ballia (4426),
Deorai (4316) Ghazipur (4797), Sidhartha Nagar
(4250), Ghazipur (4797).
87
Uttar Pradesh -Per Capita Income, (1997-98)
Fig 4
Voy Low (4797 — 5000)
Fig. 5.4
88
Table 5.7 & Figure 5.4 shows that growth of per capita income in Uttar
Pradesh. The relationship shows growth level of per capita income between
three sectors of the economy, primary, secondary, and tertiary sector. All
districts of Uttar Pradesh are categorised in to five levels. Name of the district
that include in first level very high (18064 and above) Ghaziabad (18064), the
district that include in second level high (15000 to 18064) Sonbhadra (15310),
the district that include in third level medium (10000 to 15000) Meerut
(13200), Agra (10053), Bijnor (10832), Buladshar (10601), Lucknow (11232),
Muzaffamagar (11064), Shahranpur (11256), Faizabad (6059), varansi
(10651), Jhansi (10424), the district that include in forth level low (5000 to
10000) Firozabad (7173), Mainpuri (7003), Mathra (9064), Moradabad (8568).
Aligarh (9467), Bareilley (9145), Badaun (6801), Etah (8500), Etawah (6177),
Farukhabad (7353), Unno (6358), Raebareli (5906), Sitapur (6961), Pilibhit
(9403), Rampur (8725), Shahjahanpur (8811), Barabanki (6267), Fatehpur
(7216), Hardoi (5997), Kanpur (5993), Khaeri (8642), Mirzapur (6688).
Sultanpur (8061), Allahabad (7245), Azamgarh (5132), Basti (5099),Faizabad
(6059), Gorakhpur (5693), Gonda (7081), Kaushambi (13202), Maharajganj
(5957), Mau (6575), S.R.Nagar (5802). Banda (6517), Hamirpur (8353), Jalaun
(6847), Mahoba (6577), Lalitpur (8700). Jaunpur(5142), Kaushinagar (5411),
the district that include in fifth level very low (4797 to 5000) Praptapgarh
(4961), Bahraich (4301), Ballia (4426), Deorai (4316) Ghazipur (4797),
Sidhartha Nagar (4250), Ghazipur (4797).
89
Finally, the relationship shows the growth level of per capita income and
workforce level of three sectors of the economy.
An Analysis of Per Capita Income in Primary Sector among various
Districts of Uttar Pradesli:
The districts which include high per capita income level, those districts
had loss in workforce level and the districts which include a low per capita
income those districts had gain in workforce level in primary sector.
An Analysis of Per Capita Income in Secondary Sector among various
Districts of Uttar Pradesh:
The districts which include high per capita income level, those districts
had moderately loss in workforce level and the districts which include a low
per capita income those districts had moderately gain in workforce level in
secondary sector.
An Analysis of Per Capita Income in Tertiary Sector among various
Districts of Uttar Pradesh:
The districts which include high per capita income level, those districts
had gain in workforce level and the districts which include a low per capita
income level those districts had loss in workforce level in tertiary sector.
90
Table 5.8: Sectoral Distribution of Workforce in Primary Sector
S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Districts
Shahranpur
Muzaffarnagar
Bijnor
Moradabad
Rampur
J. P. Nagar
Meerut
Baghpat
Ghaziabad
G. B. Nagar
Bulandshar
Aligarh
Hathras
Mathura
Agra
Firozabad
Etah
Mainpuri
Primary Sector
1981
64.40
70.90
67.72
70.10
75.03
57.12
46.98
70.48
67.63
68.13
49.55
82.28
81.66
1991
64.83
68.96
67.36
67.92
73.18
55.24
40.09
68.30
65.05
65.03
48.08
59.34
79.70
80.03
2001
52.61
58.5
57.4
55.4
66.0
63.5
36.5
59.3
24.5
35.0
52.5
32.4
57.8
57.3
40.7
45.5
72.4
77.1
Change( Percentage Points)
1991-1981
+0.43
-1.94
-0.36
-2.18
-1.85
-1.88
-6.89
-2.18
-2.58
-3.1
-1.47
-2.58
-1.63
2001-1991
-12.22 1
-10.46
+9.96
-12.52
-7.18
-18.74
-15.59
-15.8
-32.65
-7.73
-8.01
-13.84
-7.3
-2.93
Contd.
91
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Budaun
Bareilly
Pilibhit
Shahjahanpur
Kheri
Sitapur
Hardoi
Unno
Lucknow
Raebareli
Farukhabad
Kannauj
Etawah
Auraiya
Kanpurdehat
Kanpurnagar
Jalaun
Jhansi
Lalitpur
Hamirpur
Mahoba
86.89
71.08
81.28
81.44
89.44
86.39
88.01
84.90
45.40
85.15
78.63
79.07
50.95
79.29
61.75
81.84
32.92
85.28
68.18
80.12
79.86
87.59
84.40
85.78
82.34
40.02
81.65
76.36
77.11
17.63
78.97
63.40
83.23
83.18
77.5
58.7
70.9
72.2
79.0
77.8
78.4
75.1
31.6
77.5
67.1
69.9
66.3
73.8
76.3
30.3
74.6
60.7
80.3
76.8
77.4
-1.61
-2.9
-1.08
-1.58
-1.85
-1.99
-2.23
-2.56
-5.38
-3.5
-2.27
-1.96
-33.32
-0.32
-1.65
+ 1.39
+50.26
-7.78
-9.48
-9.22
-7.66
-8.59
-6.6
-7.38
-7.24
-8.42
-4., 5
-9.26
-10.81
-12.67
-4.37
-2.7
-2.93
-6.38
Contd.
92
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Banda
Chitrakot
Fatehpur
Pratapgarh
Kaushambi
Allahabad
Barabanki
Faizabad
A. Nagar
Sultanpur
Bahraich
Shanvasti
Balrampur
Gonda
Siddharthanagar
Basti
Sant K. Nagar
Maharajganj
Gorakhpur
Kushinagar
86.19
84.21
86.66
69.71
86.71
81.07
86.99
90.57
89.83
87.88
81.56
86.59
81.83
83.24
70.04
84.02
79.59
84.54
88.53
88.49
90.90
85.88
89.10
71.72
48.7
81.3
76.7
77.2
78.5
57.2
78.2
75.1
75.3
74.4
83.2
88.7
86.9
83.6
87.0
80.7
82.1
84.3
65.6
82.5
+0.4
-2.38
-3.42
+0.33
-2.69
-1.58
-2.45
-2.04
-1.34
-2
-9.84
-37.89
-5.13
-6.04
-12.84
-5.82
-4.49
-10.14
-5.33
-4.89
3.9
-5.18
-4.8
-6.12
Contd.
93
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Deoria
Azamgarh
Mau
Ballia
Jaunpur
Ghazipur
Chandauli
Varanasi
Sant Ravidas
Mirzapur
Sonbhadra
84.48
78.96
81.41
79.62
46.98
52.77
73.29
83.22
80.07
68.94
79.68
76.90
40.09
51.85
67.75
78.90
72.5
72.8
60.4
70.2
72.3
71.7
64.4
31.5
40.9
63.2
73.1
-1.26
+ 1.11
-1.73
-2.72
-6.89
-0.92
-5.54
-10.72
-7.27
-8.54
-9.48
-4.6
-7.82
-20.35
-4.55
-5.8
94
Table 5.8 shows the sectoral distribution of workforce in primary
sector in Uttar Pradesh. There are 70 districts in Uttar Pradesh according to
2001 census. Table shows distribution of workforce 1981, 1991, 2001 and their
change (percentage point) between 1991 to 1981 and 2001 to 1991. After
liberalisation period the change (percentage point) between 2001 to 1991 that
almost all districts shows negative growth, the districts include their names,
Aligarh (-32.65), Banda (-37.89), Varansi (-20.35), Shaharanpur (-12.22),
Muzaffamagar (-10.46), Moradabad (-12.52), Meerut (-18.74), Ghaziabad (-
15.59), Bulandshar (-15.8), Firozabad (-13.84), Etawah (-10.81), Kanpumagar
(-12.67), Allahabad (12.84), Sultanpur (-10.14), Deoria (-10.72), Mathura (-
7.73), Agra (-8.01), Etah (-7.3), Mainpuri (-2.93), Budaun (-7.78), Bareilly(-
9.48), Pilibhit (-9.22), Shahjanpur (-7.66), Kheri(-8.59), Sitapur (-6.6), Hardoi
(-7.38), Unno (-7.24), Lucknow (-8.42), Raebareli(-4.15), Farukhabad (-9.26),
Jalaun (-4.37), Jhansi (-2.7), Lalitpur (-2.93), Hamirpur(-6.38), Fatehpur (-
5.13), Pratapgarh (-6.04), Barabanki (-5.82), Faizabad( -4.49), Bahraich (-
5.33), Gonda (-4.89), Basti (-5.18), Maharajganj (-4.8), Gorakhpur (-6.12),
Azamgarh (-7.27), Mau (-8.54), Ballia (-9.48), Jaunpur(-4.6), Ghazipur(-7.82),
Mirzapur (-4.55), Sonbhadra (-5.8). There is no positive growth being noticed
of workforce in primary sector. It means, after liberalisation period workforce
level goes negative or loss in primary sector in Uttar Pradesh.
95
Table 5.9: Sectoral Distribution of Workforce in Secondary Sector
S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Districts
Sliahranpur
Muzaffarnagar
Bijnor
Moradabad
Rampur
J. P. Nagar
Meerut
Baghpat
Ghaziabad
G. B. Nagar
Bulandshar
Allgarli
Hathras
Matiiura
Agra
Firozabad
Etah
Secondary Sector
1981
13.19
12.54
17.07
14.07
10.67
17.53
23.96
11.48
12.55
11.82
21.71
6.45
1991
12.61
11.93
14.10
13.00
10.40
17.35
24.10
10.16
12.89
10.39
20.09
20.93
5.42
2001
4.1
3.6
6.2
5.5
6.6
8.0
4.9
4.2
4.7
4.0
5.8
6.6
6.8
4.4
6.6
6.4
4.8
Change (Percentage Point)
1991-1981
-1.3
-0.61
-2.97
-1.07
-0.27
-0.18
0.14
-1.32
0.34
-1.43
-1.62
-1.03
2001-1991
-8.51
-7.79
-7.9
-7.5
-3.8
-12.45
-19.4
-4.36
-6.29
-5.99
-13.49
-14.53
-0.62
Contd.
96
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Mainpuri
Budaun
Bareilly
Pilibhit
Shahjahanpur
Kheri
Sitapur
Hardoi
Unno
Lucknow
Raebareli
Farukhabad
Kannauj
Etawah
Auraiya
Kanpurdehat
Kanpurnagar
Jalaun
Jhansi
Lalitpur
Hamirpur
6.40
5.02
11.40
7.07
6.91
3.99
5.30
4.36
5.76
13.29
5.60
9.61
6.79
19.43
6.77
12.08
7.03
6.35
3.89
3.84
8.09
6.11
5.06
2.32
4.40
2.95
5.47
14.00
5.66
7.66
5.34
26.19
4.87
11.20
4.95
5.17
2.7
2.9
4.8
3.7
3.7
3.4
4.8
4.7
4.3
5.0
4.1
8.3
13.3
4.1
3.3
3.2
3.9
3.6
5.9
3.0
2.9
-2.51
-1.18
-3.31
-0.96
-1.85
-1.67
-0.9
-1.41
-0.29
+0.71
+0.06
-1.95
-1.45
+6.76
-1.9
-0.88
-2.08
-1.18
-1.19
-0.02
-3.29
-2.41
-1.36
1.08
+0.4
+ 1.75
-1.31
-9
-1.56
+0.64
-1.24
-1.31
-22.29
-1.27
-5.3
-1.95
-2.27
Contd.
97
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Mahoba
Banda
Chitrakot
Fatehpur
Pratapgarh
Kaushambi
Allahabad
Barabanki
Faizabad
A. Nagar
Sultanpur
Bahraich
Sharwasti
Balrampur
Gonda
S. Nagar
Basti
Sant K. Nagar
Maharajganj
Gorakhpur
Kushinagar
4.78
6.08
5.01
12.12
6.55
7.80
5.22
3.12
3.57
4.68
5.40
3.84
4.25
4.63
9.11
5.44
5.79
4.54
3.06
2.74
1.70
4.52
1.72
5.98
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.6
5.2
5.5
9.7
6.3
3.9
6.2
6.6
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.7
2.3
3.6
3.5
2.8
3.9
3.6
-0.94
-1.83
-0.38
-3.01
-1.11
-2.01
-0.68
+ 1.42
-0.83
-0.16
+0.58
-0.74
-0.65
+0.57
+0.59
+0.86
-1.89
+2.06
-0.86
-0.04
+0.6
-0.92
+ 1.08
-2.08
Contd.
98
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Deoria
Azamgarh
Mau
Ballia
Jaunpur
Ghazipur
Chandauli
Varanasi
Sant Ravidas
Mirzapur
Sonbhadra
5.84
11.58
5.86
9.79
8.43
26.04
14.69
4.92
7.59
17.21
4.38
8.00
5.33
26.31
18.03
8.47
4.1
7.9
17.5
5.4
7.6
6.2
8.0
22.6
26.0
10.6
2.5
-0.92
-3.99
-1.48
-1.79
-3.1
+0.27
^3.34
-0.82
0.31
1.02
-0.4
+0.87
-3.71
-7.43
+5.77
99
Table 5.9 shows the sectoral distribution of workforce in secondary
sector in Uttar Pradesh. There are 70 districts in Uttar Pradesh according to
2001 census. Table shows distribution of workforce 1981, 1991, 2001 and their
change (percentage point) between 1991 to 1981 and 2001 to 1991. After
liberalisation period the change (percentage point) between 2001 to 1991 that
some of district shows negative growth, the districts include their names,
Kanpumagar (-22.29), Meerut (-12.45), Ghaziabad (-19.4), Agra (-13.49),
Firozabad (-14. 53), Shahranpur (-8.51), Muzaffamagar (-7.79), Bijnor (-7.9),
Moradabad(-7.5), Rampur (-3.8), Bulandshar (-4.36), Aligarh (-6.29), .Mathura
(-5.99), Etah (-0.62), Mainpuri (-1.19), Budaun (-0.02), Bareilly (-3.29),
Pi]ibhit(-2.41), Shahjanpur(-1.36), Unno(-1.31), lucknow (-9.0), Raebareli (-
1.56), Etawah (-1.24), Kanpurdehat (-1.31), Jalaun (-1.27), Jhansi (-5.3).
Lalitpur (-1.95), Hamirpur (-2.27), Banda (-0.74), Fatehpur (-0.65),
Faizabad(1.89), Bahraich (-0.86), Gonda ( -0.04), Basti (-0.92), Gorakhpur(-
2.08), Deoria (-0.82), Jaunpur (-0.4), Varansi (-3.71), Mirzapur (-7.43). The
some of districts shows positive growth, these districts include there names
Kheri (+1.08), Sitapur (+0.4), Hardoi (+1.75), Farukhabad (+0.64),
Paratapgarh(+0.57), Allahabad (+0.59), Barabanki (+0.86), Siddharthanagar
(+0.6), Azamgarh (+0.31), Ballia (+1.02), Ghazipur (+0.87), Sonbhadra(+5.77).
It means, after liberalisation period workforce level moderately goes negative
or loss in secondary sector in Uttar Pradesh.
iOO
Table 5.10: Sectoral Distribution of Workforce in Tertiary Sector
S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Districts
Sliahranpur
Muzaffarnagar
Bijnor
Moradabad
Rampur
J. P. Nagar
Meerut
Baghpat
Ghaziabad
G. B. Nagar
Bulandshar
Aligarh
Hathras
Mathura
Agra
Firozabad
Etah
Mainpuri
Tertiary Sector
1981
22.41
16.56
15.21
15.83
14.31
25.34
29.06
18.04
19.82
20.04
28.74
11.27
11.94
1991
15.08
19.11
18.55
19.09
16.42
27.41
35.80
21.53
22.06
24.59
31.83
19.72
14.89
16.08
2001
43.3
37.8
36.5-
39.1
27.4
28.6
58.5
37.5
70.08
61.0
41.7
41.0
35.4
38.3
52.7
48.1
22.7
20.2
Change (Percentage Point)
1991-2001
-7.33
+2.55
+3.34
+3.26
+2.11
+2.07
+6.74
+3.49
+2.24
+ 13.09
+3.09
+3.62
+4.14
2001-1991
+28.22
+ 18.69
+ 17.95
+20.01
+ 10.98
+31.09
-34.28
+20.17
+ 18.94
+ 13.71
+20.87
+28.38
+ 7.81
+4.12
Contd.
101
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Budaun
Bareilly
Pilibhit
Shahjahanpur
Kheri
Sitapur
Hardoi
Unno
Lucknow
Raebareli
Farukhabad
Kannauj
Etawali
Auraiya
Kanpurdehat
Kanpurnagar
Jalaun
Jhansi
Lalitpur
Hamirpur
Malioba
8.09
17.53
11.65
11.66
6.57
8.31
7.63
9.34
41.31
9.24
11.76
14.14
29.62
13.93
26.17
11.14
10.73
11.81
23.73
13.77
15.08
10.09
11.27
11.27
12.19
46.03
12.69
15.98
17.55
11.88
56.32
16.16
25.40
11.82
11.65
19.5
36.5
25.4
24.1
17.7
17.4
16.9
20.6
63.5
18.4
24.6
16.8
29.6
23.0
20.5
65.8
21.8
33.5
16.7
20.3
19.6
+3.72
+6.2
+2.12
+3.42
+3.52
+2.96
+3.64
+2.85
+4.72
+3.45
+4.22
+3.41
+26.7
+26.7
+2.23
+0.77
+0.68
+0.92
.
+ 11.81
+ 12.77
+ 11.63
+9.02
+7.61
+6.13
-t-5.63
+8.41
+ 17.47
+5.71
+8.62
-12.05
+8.69
+9.48
+5.64
+8.1
+4.58
+8.65
Contd.
102
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Banda
Chitrakot
Fatehpur
Pratapgarh
Kaushambi
Allahabad
Barabanki
Faizabad
A. Nagar
Sultanpur
Bahraich
Sharwasti
Balrampur
Gonda
Siddharthanagar
Basti
Sant K. Nagar
Maharajganj
Gorakhpur
Kushinagar
Deoria
9.02
9.71
8.32
18.17
6.74
11.14
7.79
6.31
6.60
7.44
13.04
9.68
9.57
13.87
12.12
20.84
10.47
14.62
10.92
8.41
8.77
7.41
9.60
9.18
22.29
12.19
18.1
15.7
19.6
17.5
16.0
33.1
15.4
21.0
18.5
19.1
14.5
8.7
10.9
13.7
10.7
15.6
14.3
12.9
30.5
13.9
23.4
+0.55
+4.16
+3.8
+2.67
+3.73
+3.48
+3.13
+2.1
+2.17
+2.16
+9.25
+2.51
+8.53
+5.73
+5.38
+ 12.26
+4.93
+6.38
+8.18
+6.09
-4.93
^3.29
+6
+3.72
-8.21
-11.21
Contd.
103
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Azamgarh
Mau
Ballia
Jaunpur
Ghazipur
Chandauli
Varanasi
Sant Ravidas
Mirzapur
Sonbhadra
9.46
12.73
10.59
12.88
'
21.19
12.03
12.34
13.85
15.94
15.10
15.15
21.84
14.22
12.63
19.3
22.1
24.4
20.0
22.1
27.5
45.8
33.1
26.2
24.4
+2.88
+3.21
+4.51
+2.27
+0.64
+2.19
+6.96
+8.25
+8.46
+4.9
+6.95
+23.96
-11.98
+ 11.77
Source: Census of India 1981, Table B-2(S), Census of India 1991, Table B-2(S)
104
Table 5.10 shows the sectoral distribution of workforce in tertiary
sector in Uttar Pradesh. There are 70 districts in Uttar Pradesh according to
2001 census. Table shows distribution of workforce 1981, 1991, 2001 and their
change (percentage point) between 1991 to 1981 and 2001 to 1991. After
liberalisation period the change (percentage point) between 2001 to 1991 that
almost all districts shows positive growth, the districts include their names,
Meerut (+31.09), Ghaziabad (+34.28), Shahranpur (+28.22), Moradabad
(+20.01), Bulandshar (+20.17), Agra (+20.87), Firozabad (+28.38), Varansi
(+23.96), Muzaffamagar (+18.69), Moradabad (+20.01), Rampur (+10.98)
Aligarh (+18.94), Mathura (+13.71), Budaun (+11.81), Bareilly (-rl2.77)
Pilibhit (+11.63), Lucknow (+17.47), Etawah (+12.05), Allahabad (12.26)
Deoria (+11.21), Mirzapur (+11.98), Sonbhadra (+11.77), Etah (r7.81)
Mainpuri (+4.12), Shahjahanpur (+9.02), Kheri (+7.61), Sitapur (r6.13)
Hardoi (+5.63), Unno (+8.41), Raebareli (+5.71), Farukhabad (r8.62j
Kanpurdehat (+8.69), Kanpumagar (+9.48), Jalaun (+5.64), Jhansi (+8.1)
Lalitpur (+4.58), Hamirpur (+8.65), Banda (+8.53), Fatehpur (+5.73)
Pratapgarh (+5.38), Barabanki (+4.93), Faizabad (+6.38), Sultanpur (^8.18)
Bahraich (+6.09), Gonda (+4.93), Siddharthanagar (+3.29), Basti (+6.0)
Maharajganj (+3.72), Gorakhpur (+8.21), Azamgarh (+6.96), Mau (+8.25)
Ballia (+8.46), Jaunpur (+4.9), Ghazipur (+6.95). There is no negative growth
being noticed of workforce in tertiary sector. It means, after liberalisation
period workforce level goes positive or gain in tertiary sector in Uttar Pradesh.
105
Correlation Coefficient Technique
A correlation coefficient (r): Is "a decimal number between 0.00 and + or -
1.00 that indicates the degree to which two quantitative variables are related".
Formula Correlation Co-efficient:
Correlation(r) =[ NEXY - (2:X)(I:Y) / SqrtdNEX^ - (2:X)^1[NI:Y^ - (L\f\)]
where,
N = Number of values or elements
X = First Score
Y = Second Score
SXY = Sum of the product of first and Second Scores
SX = Sum of First Scores
ZY = Sum of Second Scores
SX = Sum of square First Scores
l Y ' = Sum of square Second Scores
106
Table 5.11: Showing Correlations between District Wise Per Capita
Income with Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Sectors
S.No.
1
2
3
Correlation Between
Variables
District wise Per Capita
Income -Primary Sector
District wise Per Capita
Income - Secondary Sector
District wise Per Capita
Income - Tertiary Sector
Number of
Variables
4
4
4
Values of Correlation
-0.320
-0.526
+0.651
The above table 5.11 shows the correlation coefficient between per
capita income of primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors of Uttar Pradesh. Per
capita income of districts exhibited highest value of correlation coefficient with
tertiary results (+0.651) followed by secondary results (-0.526) and than with
primary results (-0.320). The result is obtained at significance levels of 0.01
level in tertiary sector, 0.01 level in secondary sector, 0.05 level in primary
sector. It means moderately strong correlation ship between per capita income
with tertiary sector. It shows positive correlation ship with rise of income there
is increase workforce in tertiary sector. Moderate correlation ship between per
capita income with secondary sector. It shows moderately negative correlation
ship with rise of per capita income there is moderate decline in workforce in
107
secondary sector. Weak correlation ship between per capita income with
primary sector. It shows negative correlation ship with rise in per capita income
there is decline in workforce in primary sector.
108
Conclusion
The analysis clearly has established a link between the process of
economic liberalisation and change in the nature of employment structure.
There is a clear cut evidence of shifting of employment from primary to
secondary and tertiary sector of the economy. Thus, with the liberalisation
process there is a marked change in the employment structure with prevalence
of tertiary sector, economic activity with urban bias. Over all conclusion shows
of all chapters that; first chapter concludes implement of economic
liberalisation, origin of the concept, impact of economic liberalisation on
employment and economy and how to deal with organised and unorganised
sectors. Second chapter concluded the beginning and consequences of
economic liberalisation in India. In third chapter literature review conclude
earlier work done by scholars. Fourth chapter concluded simply describe the
geographical outline of Uttar Pradesh. In fifth chapter conclusion is being
made with the helps of tables & graphs that after liberalisation period
employment structure in Uttar Pradesh shifted from primary sector to
secondary and tertiary sector, the level of workforce shows negative or loss in
primary sector, level of workforce shows moderately negative or loss in
secondary sector, and level of workforce shows positive or gain in tertiary
sector of economy. It means that employment structure shift from agricultural
to industry and service sector of the economy. Workforce level shows increase
in industry and service sector and decrease in agriculture sector.
109
Following the implementation of liberalisation in Uttar Pradesh, the
government faces many new challenges, the level of competition rise in the
market, industry produced goods and services are in better quality, so they can
challenge the global market and their demands increase in international market,
standard of living increases, people are living in better condition and enjoy
their higher status, their economic, social, and cultural life has improved,
various new opportunities are now open for the people to reach the
international and global level. The dynamic information technology (IT) sector
has under gone major changes through liberalisation and modernisation, while
many employment opportunities rise in this new IT sector. There is a continued
emphasis on technological progress in agriculture specially in the backward
districts in Uttar Pradesh. Through, liberalisation many new doors opened in
economic sectors to raise the over all economy, to raise employment and to
reduce poverty, and the sustainable development of the state and better
employment opportunities provided for our future generation. So, they can live
in a better condition and make efforts to put the economy on the path of
economic development and catch the growth pattern of developed nations.
110
Reference
Census of India: Various Census Report.
Human Development Report (2003): Uttar Pradesh.
I l l
Proposed Plan for Ph.D. Work
The proposed plan for doctoral research on "The Impact of Economic
Liberalisation on Employment Structure in Uttar Pradesh" would designate
basically impact of liberalisation at district level on three sectors of the
economy. The proposal plan mainly deal with the level of growth of
development of the economy and with level of workforce of primary,
secondary, and tertiary sectors. The study will be undertaken by collecting
published and unpublished data. The data includes the information on different
aspects of distribution of workforce of primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors,
and also include the main, marginal and non-workers. All the information has
to be collected on the basis of primary and secondary data collection. Fresh
information is necessary in order to measure the impact of economic
liberalisation on employment structure in Uttar Pradesh.
Proposed tentative plan for doctoral research is given below:
The study will be accomplished in following broad categories.
1. The collection of literature and related work and its analysis.
2. Empirical observation.
3. Collection, computation, interpretation and result of the work related
data.
It is hoped that the proposed study, when completed would add a new
chapter of research to the existing knowledge of employment structure and will
provide a further base to enhance the scope of economic liberalisation and
employment structure of Uttar Pradesh.
I
I Bibliography
112
Bibliography
Agarwal, R.N. and Goldar, B. (1995): Economic Reforms and Employment in
India Projections for the year 2001-02: Indian Journal of Labour Economics,
Delhi, Indian Society of Labour Economics, Vol.38, No.4, pp.577-95.
Aggarwal, A. (1991): Estimates of Fixed Capital Stock in the Registered
Manufacturing Sector in India: Working Paper No. 937, Ahmedabad, Indian
Institute of Management.
Ahluwalia, I.J. (1991): Productivity and Growth in Indian Manufacturing:
Delhi, Oxford University Press.
Banerjee, B. (1983): The Role of the Informal Sector in the Migration Process:
A Test of Probabilistic Migration Models and Labour Market Segmentation in
India, Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 399-422.
Banerjee, B. (1986): Rural to Urban Migration and the Urban Labour Market:
A Case Study of Delhi, Bombay, Himalaya Publishing House.
Bhalotra, Sonia R. (1996): The Spatial Unemployment-Wage Relation
Revisited: An Investigation of Interstate Urban Unemployment Differentials
India University, of Bristol, DP No. 96/409, Mar. 1996.
Chatterji R. (1989): The Behavior of Industrial Prices in India, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
113
Chenery, H., Robinson, S. and Syrquin, M. (1986): Industrialization and
Growth: A Comparative Study, New York, Oxford University Press.
Dev, S. Mahendra (2000): Economic Liberalization and Employment in South
Asia-I: Economic and political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 8 Jan., pp.
40-51.
Dutta, R., S. (1998): Lags in employment adjustment and inter-industry
differentials: An analysis using dynamic inter-related factor demand functions:
Discussion Paper No. 149, Mumbai, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development
Research.
Fallon, P. and Lucas, R.E.B. (1993): Job Security Regulations and the Dynamic
Demand for Industrial Labour in India and Zimbabwe: Journal of Development
Economics, Amsterdam, Elsevier North Holland, 40.
Ghose, A.K. (1994): Employment in organized manufacturing m India, Indian
Journal of Labour Economics, Delhi, Indian Society of Labour Economics,
vol.37(2), April-June, pp.141-62.
Ghose, A.K. (1995): Labour Market Flexibility and the Indian Economy:
Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Delhi, Indian Society of Labour
Economics, vol.38(l), April-June, pp.55-62.
114
Goldar, B. (2000): Employment Growth in Organised Manufacturing in India:
Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 1 Apr., pp. 1191-
1195.
Krueger, A. (1974): The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society:
American Economic Review, Nashville, American Economic Association.
Krueger, A. and Summers, L. (1987): Reflections on the Inter-Industry Wage
Structure, in K. Lang and J. Leonard (eds.): Unemployment and the structure of
labour markets, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Krueger, A. and Summers, L. (1988): Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry
Wage Structure, Econometrica, Evanston, The Econometric Society, 56, pp.
259-293.
Kundu, A. (1997): Trends and Structure of Employment in the 1990s:
Implications for Urban Growth: Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai,
Sameeksha Trust, 14 June.
Marston, S. (1985): Two Views of the Geographic Distribution of
Unemployment: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press,
79:57-79.
Mathur, A.N. (1989): The Effects of Legal and Contractual Regulations on
Employment in Indian industry, in G. Edgren (ed.): Restructuring, Employment
and Industrial Relations, New Delhi, ILO-ARTEP.
115
Minhas, B., et al. (1987): The Cost of Living in Urban India, in Sankhya: The
Journal of the Indian Statistical Association, Poona, Indian Statistical
Association, University of Poona.
Minhas, B., et al. (1990): The Urban Cost of Living in Indian States, in Indian:
Journal of Political Economy, Pune, Indian School of Political Economy.
Minhas, B.S. and Majumdar, G. (1987): Unemployment and Casual Labour in
India: An Analysis of Recent NSS data: Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
Pune, Indian School of Political Economy, 32(3).
Mitra, A. (1993): Urban Employment, Migrant Labour and Structural
Adjustment: Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Delhi, Indian Society of
Labour Economics, Vol. 37, No.3.
Mundle, S. (1992): The Employment Effect of Stabilization and Related Policy
Changes in India: 1991-92 to 1993-94: Indian Journal of Labour Economics,
Delhi, Indian Society of Labour Economics, Vol. 35, No.2, July-Sep., pp. 227-
37.
Mundle, S. (1993): Unemployment and Financing of Relief Employment in
Period of Stabilization in India, 1992-1994, Economic and Political Weekly,
Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 30 Jan.
Nagaraj, R. (1984): Subcontracting in Indian Manufacturing Industries:
Analysis, Evidence and Issues, Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai,
Sameeksha Trust, Aug.
116
Nagaraj, R. (1985): Trends in Factory Size in Indian industry: 1950-1980:
Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Management, Mumbai, Sameeksha
Trust, Feb.
Nagaraj, R. (1990): Industrial Growth: Further Evidence and Towards an
Explanation and Issues, Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha
Trust, 13 Oct., pp.2313-2332.
Nagaraj, R. (1994): Employment and Wages in Manufacturing Industries:
Trends, Hypotheses and Evidence: Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai,
Sameeksha Trust, 22 Jan.
Nagaraj, R. (2000): Organised Manufacturing Employment, Discussion in
Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 16 Sep., pp.3445-
3448.
Nickell, S. (1993): Competition and Corporate Performance, Institute of
Economics and Statistics Applied Economics Discussion Paper No. 155.
University of Oxford.
Nickell, S. and Wadhwani, S. (1990): Insider Forces and Wage Determination:
Economic Journal, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, on behalf of the Royal
Economic Society, 100, pp. 496-509.
117
Papola, T.S. (1994): Structural Adjustment, Labour Market Flexibility and
Employment: Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Delhi, Indian Society of
Labour Economics, Vol.37, No.l, Jan.-Mar., pp.3-16.
Planning Commission (1990): Employment: Past Trends and Prospects for the
1990s: Working paper. New Delhi, Government of India, May.
Planning Commission (1992): Eighth Five-Year Plan, 1992-97: New Delhi,
Government of India, Vol. 1.
Planning Commission (2001): Report of the Task Force on Employment
Opportunities: New Delhi, Government of India, June.
Rodrik, D. 1992. .The Limits of Trade Policy Reform in Developing Countries:
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Nashville, American Economic
Association, Vol.6, Issue 1, pp. 87-105.
Rosen, H.S. and Quandt, R.E. (1978): Estimation of a Disequilibrium
Aggregate Labour Market. In Review of Economics and Statistics, Cambridge,
MA, MIT Press, 60:371-379.
Sarvekshana. (1990): Employment and Unemployment: Journal of the National
Sample Survey Organisation, New Delhi, Central Statistical Office,
Government of India.
118
Sen, A. (1996): Economic Reforms, Employment and Poverty: Trends and
options: Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, Vol. 31,
Nos. 35-37.
Sengupta, A. (1995): Financial Sector and Economic Reforms in India, Special
Article: Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 7 Jan.
Srivastava, V. (1996): Liberalisation, Productivity and Competition: A Panel
Study of Indian Manufacturing, Delhi, Oxford University Press.
Sundaram, K. (2001): Employment-Unemployment Situation in the Nineties:
Some Results from NSS 55th Round Survey: Economic and Political Weekly
Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 17 Mar., pp.931-940.
Tulpule, B. and Dutta, R. 1988. .Real wages in Indian Industry, in Economic
and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 29 Oct.
Unni, J., Lalitha, N. and Rani, U. (2001): Economic Refonns and Productivity
Trends in Indian Manufacturing, Special Article: Economic and Political
Weekly, Mumbai, Sameeksha Trust, 13 Oct., pp. 3914-3922.
Vaidyanathan, A. (1994): Employment Situation: Some Emerging
Perspectives: Special Article: Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai,
Sameeksha Trust, 10 Dec.
119
Wadhwani, S. and Wall, M. (1991): A Direct Test of the Efficiency Wage
Model: in Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 529-
547.
Westphal, L. (1981): Empirical justification for infant industry protection:
World Bank Staff working paper No. 455, Washington D.C., World Bank.
Annexure
Annexure-1
.20
Sectors
Total workers 1. Cultivators 2.Agricultural labourers 3.Plantation/Forestry/Fisheries/ Livestock and hunting
4. Mining/ quarrying 5. Manufacturing including house hold industry 6. Construction 7. Trade/ Commerce 8. Transport Storage/ Communication 9. Other Services
Workers (in
1981* 323.97 189.58 51.77 1.77
0.20 29.22
3.30 14.69 6.65
26.79
1991* 413.61 220.31 78.33 2.96
0.35 32.05
5.11 25.51 7.71
41.28
lakh)
1991** 388.81 206.86 76.09 2.41
0.30 30.57
4.35 23.97 7.15
37.11
Decadal Increase
1981-91 89.64 30.73 26.56 1.19
0.15 2.83
1.81 10.82 1.06
14.49
Annual Growth Rate 1981-91
2.47 1.51 4.23 5.24
5.69 0.93
4.45 5.68 1.49
4.42 Source: Distribution of Workers by Industry (Census 1981, 199 * Including Uttaranchal ** Excluding Uttaranchal
1)
121
Annexure-2
Distribution of Persons on the Basis of Usual Status (Ps+ss) by
Industry in Uttar Pradesh
s. N.
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8 & 9.
S(
Industry
Agriculture Mining & Quarrying Manufactur ing Electricity, water etc. Constructio n Whole sale and retail trades, restaurant and hotels Transport storage & communicat ion Other Services
Total )urce: Document
Number of Persons (in 32nd roun d (197 7-78)
262 -
35
-
6
22
8
26
359 of Resp
43 " round
(1987-88)
336 -
42
1
11
30
10
41
471 active Roi
50th roun d* (1993 -94)
355 1
48
1
12
37
13
47
514 inds of h
lakh)
roun d* (1999
2000) 351
-
61
1
21
54
17
44
549 [SS.
61st roun d* (200 4-05) 403
1
84
2
37
66
22
46
661
Annual Growth Rate 1977 -78 to 1987 -88
2.52 -
1.84
-
6.25
3.15
2.26
4.66
2.75
1993-94 to 1999-2000
-0.19 -
4.07
-
9.77
6.50
4.57
-1.09
1.10
1999-2000 to 2004-05
2.80 -
6.61
14.87
11.99
4.10
5,29
0.9
3.78
122
Annexure-3
State-wise current daily status of unemployment rates
(50th, 55th and 61st round of NSS)
S.N.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
State
Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All India
50th round Rural
6.3 7.8 6
5.6 6.6 4.4 14.7 2.6 4.3 6.9 2.7 1.1 12.2 3.1 9.1 5.6
Urba n
8 9.4 8.7 6
6.6 6.3 17.7 6.8 6.3 9.8 4.1 2.4 9.7 4.8 12.1 7.4
55th round Rural
8.1 7.4 7
4.8 4.7 4.3 21.7 3.8 6.5 7.1 3.7 2.8 13.5 3.6 17 7.1
Urb an 7.6 11.9 9.3 4.2 4.5 5.4 19.1
7 8.1 9.5 4.9 4.5 8.9 6.2 10.6 7.7
61st round Rural
10.9 6.5 6.8 4.1 6.2 6.7
25.6 5.6 9.3 10.2 9.7 4.4 15.1 3.7 11.2 8.2
Urba n
7.9 9.0 10.0 4.7 6.9 6.0
25.2 6.4 8.8 15.0 7.5 6.1 8.6 6.3 10.5 8.3
Source: Document of Respective Rounds of NSS.
123
Annexure-4
Sector Wise Assessment of Employment Potential in Uttar Pradesh
during Eleventh Five Year Plan
S.N.
1. 2. 3. 4: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
Sector
Health Education Information Kiosks(css) Urban self employment Agri-clinics Tourism Social sector IT Bio-Technology SUDA Seva Centre Auto industry Agro industry Animal Husbandry Transport Electronics Labour Social Forestry Textiles Handloom Building Construction Bio-Diesel Khadi Dairy Silk Land Reclamation Total
Potential Employment (in lakh)
4.00 6.63 2.00 1.00 1.04 6.30 6.25 3.00
0.23 0.35 2.25 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.07 0.05 0.04 2.50 1.50 0.50 22.00 5.30 3.00 2.51 2.00 74.22
Source: www.planning.up.nic.in/annualplan_0809/vol-l.