4000
Reeling of Employment Trends on Indian Job Market and Post COVID Impact
Dr.Pinakshi Bag1, Dr.Biswamohan Dash2, Dr.PrabhuramTripathy3.,Dr.Pramod Kumar Patjoshi4
Assistant Professor, Regional College of Management, Bhubaneswar, Odisha Associate Professor,RegionalCollege of Management,Bhubaneswar, Odisha Assistant Professor,Sri SriUniversity,Cuttack,Odisha
Associate Professor,Centurion University of Technology and Management,Odisha
Article History: Received: 10 January 2021; Revised: 12 February 2021; Accepted: 27 March 2021; Published
online:28
April 2021ABSTRACT:
The pandemic COVID-19, crisis has already changed into labour and economic market shockwave, striking not only supply of goods besides services but also the demand. Apart from of size, all businesses are facing stern challenges particularly in hospitality, tourism as well asaviation sectorswith an actual danger of major drops in income, bankruptciesthen employment sufferers in definite segments. Nourishing commercial operations will be predominantly problematicaimed atvarious organisations due to the impact of COVID 19 for travel prohibitions, quarantine measuresbesidesborder closures. Many workforces cannot reach to their spaces of job, which has subsidiary effects on incomes particularly earning of unorganised workers. This paper has given an insight about the employment trends in Indian job market in the first decade of twenty first century and the impact of post Covid-19 on the scope of employment position in Indian job market.The engagementand job position in India was weakening later2019,nevertheless the corona virus pandemic has donesubstances far not as good as.
Key words: NSS, CIME, NLET, LFPR &WPR
1. INTRODUCTION
The pandemicCOVID-19, which has already infected almost 6.5 million, in216 + countries, ensues in more than 310 391 deaths of the worldwide population.The COVID-19 pandemic, the utmostworldwide humanitarian encounter the world has confrontedlater World War II.The crisis has by this timechanged obsessed by labour andeconomic market shockwave, striking not only supply of goods besides services but also the demand.Apart from of size, all businesses are facing stern challenges particularly in hospitality, tourism thenaviation sectors with an actual danger of major failures in income, bankruptciesin addition to employment drops in definite segments. Nourishing commercialprocesses will be predominantly problematic for various businesses due to the impact of COVID 19 for travel prohibitions, quarantine measures besides border closures.
Many workforces cannot reach to their spaces of job, which has subsidiary effects on incomes particularly earning of unorganised workers.The Covid19 has been created the current background of insecurity and dread, where also businesses are probable to postponementspeculations, purchases of goods as well as the employing of workers. In terms of economic prospects, the quality and quantity of employment are decliningexpeditiously.
1.1 Effect of COVID-19 on the Indian Job Market
The effects of COVID-19 have givenextensiveinfluences on Indian job market consequences. Preliminary “ILO (International Labour Organisation)evaluated anddesignatedanincrease in worldwide unemployment of around 5.3 million in addition to 24.7 million from a base level of 188 million in 2019”. Along with an unprecedented human toll, COVID-19 has triggered a deep economic crisis in Indian job market. “According to the jointly survey of FICCI and tax consultancy Dhruva advisors where took responses from about 380 companies across the sectors. It is said that businesses are grappling with tremendous uncertainty about their future”.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
• To analyse employment trends in Indian job market in the first decade of twenty first century. • To analyse the impact of post Covid-19 on the scope of employment position in Indian job market.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In order to reach the stated objectives, a systematic review of literature conducted and data are collected about employment scenario of Indian job market in the first decade of twenty first century andpost Covidimpact on Indian job market from secondary sources. This article employs a methodology to review the articles cited in the database Sage, JSTOR, Taylor and Francis online, Springer link and Emerald as tracing some national sample survey report on Indian job market scenario in the first decade of twenty first century.
Hence the study for this article becomes a desk research rather than a survey or any other mode of researching.
4001
The employment opportunities are the group of personslooking forserviceinside an economy. The comprehensivewage besides salary stages in the employment opportunities signifies an average of differentsectorsas well askinds of work. At a given point in time, the supply in addition to demand for labour in the job market can vary from industry to industry.
Employment has been attributed as important dimension to the development agenda in India. Throughdiscrepancyin growing of employment amongstvariousindustries of the economy, there have markedly been variations in the area of employment. Three major segments by comprehensive division of economic activity, namely, services, manufacturingthenagriculture, are shaped reasonable greatness in job creation. In the 2000s, India’s economy raisedstrongly, oftenrecording a growing rate of 8 % or more in addition to prove to be comparativelystrong to the worldwide financial crisis of 2008-09. In 2015, with China slow down, India established its place by way of the fastest mountinggreat economy. Accordingly, India’s share in world GDP enhanced from an average of 4.8 % in 2001-07 to 7.5 % during 2017 in purchasing power terms.
Though, notwithstandingof maintainabledevelopment over many years, it has been extensivelycontended that the Indian labour market has protected economic performance. Afterward the release of the 2009-10 “National Sample Survey (NSS)” data, recommended a net enhance in job opportunities of just 1.1 million during 2004-5 to 2009-10. This was a clear indication of “jobless growth” on Indian job situation.
4.1 Employment Status: Tends 1988-2008
Herewe deliberate the movements of two essential variables form the year 1988 to 2008 of “National Sample Survey (NSS)” data,: Employment positionbesidesEmployment by Industries has shown in the Table 1.4 then 1.5. Employment position mentions to the kindof employment –wage employment and self-employment-. Further, wage employment consists of normal employment in addition to casual employment. Furthermore, the 64throundNSSsummarised average daily wage rates for wage employment, cover both casual and regular
employment. Following, we compared the average daily wage rates crosswiseindustries for regular employment which is disaggregated for educational accomplishment.
4.2 Employment Status: Trends 2000 onwards
Analysing the percentage of employment status for the period 1988-2008 by using the National Sample Survey (NSS) data, it has revealed that all through the period for rural work personnel, regardless of gender, the share of self-employment in total employment differs from 50percent to 57percent, on the similar time by way of the part of casual employment differs from 32percentto 46percent. Associating males as well as females through the period, portion of casual employment in total employment of males continuedlower than the equal ratio for females. Though the series of this ratio for rural males is around 32percentto 37percent, aimed at female theseries is around 39percentto 46percent, presenting noticeable change between rangesthenthe share of self-employment for male found to be greater than of females. Whereas the regular self-employment males the rangeinamong 9percent and 10percent, though for females the range is among 4percentto 5percent. On the other hand, the rural segment, regardless of gender, the share of regular employment in urban parts is abundantadvanced, changing in the range of 34percent to 44percent. However, this portion, through the period, was higher than the portion of casual employment; the share of casual employment differs in between 15percent to 27percent.. The portion of regular employment for urban women increased from 34percent to 44percent, although the same for male has been constantthroughout this period. Regardless of gender, in urban segment, through the period, the share of self-employment, similarto the share of regular employment, shows higher than the portion of casual employment, varies in between 36percentto 45percent.
The period from 1988 to 2008, although agriculture leftovers as mainbasis of employment in rural segment, its portion in entire rural employment has decreased from three-fourth to two-third. While in the case of rural male, for this period, portions of industries in employment - storage &communication, trade, construction,transport, hotel and restaurant have shown consistent increase.Though the portion of construction increased from 3percent to 8percent, the portion for transport, storage & communication increased from 2percent to 4percent.
In the case of rural female, only the industrial group “other services” has exposedstable increase in the portion of employment, i.e. from 4percent to 5.4percent.The aforesaid is important to note that for rural females, the portion of agriculture in employment through this period has exposedindividualsmalldifference, i.e. from 81percent to 85percent. Aimed at urban male, thru 1988 to 2008, the portion of manufacturing in employment has weakened from 26percent to 24percent, thoughaopposing trend is obvious in trade, hotel & restaurant, presentation an increase from 21percent to 28percent. Essence of trends for urban male obviouslydesignates that the service segmentendures to be the primarybasis of employment, althoughportion of manufacturing has exposed a weakening. It is vital to note that the portion of construction enlargedsince 6percent to 10percent. Though, for
4002
urban females, the portion of the group ‘other services’ has revealedaimportantsurge from 34percent to 40percent, developing as the primaryfoundation of employment, though the portion of manufacturing has declined from 27percent to 25percent.
Table 1.1 Percentage Distribution of Employment (By Principal Status) For Different Rounds for All India
Rural Area Survey Period (Round) Female Male Self-employed Regular wage/salaried Casual labour Self-employed Regular wage/salaried Casual labour 2007-08(64) 50.8 5.3 43.9 54.9 9.3 35.9 2004-05(61) 56.4 4.8 38.9 57.6 9.1 33.3 1999-00(55) 50 3.9 46.1 54.4 9.0 36.6 1993-94(50) 51.3 3.4 45.3 56.7 8.7 34.6 1987-88(43) 54.9 4.9 40.2 57.5 1.4 32.1 Urban Area Survey Period (Round) Female Male Self-employed Regular wage/salaried Casual labour Self-employed Regular wage/salaried Casual labour 2007-08(64) 35.8 43.2 21 42.5 42.1 15.4 2004-05(61) 40.4 42.2 17.4 44.6 40.8 14.6 1999-00(55) 38.4 38.5 23.1 41.2 41.9 16.9 1993-94(50) 37.2 35.5 27.3 41.1 42.7 16.2 1987-88(43) 39.3 34.2 26.5 41 44.4 14.6
Source: National Sample Survey Organization (2010a), 64th Round, Report No. 531
4.3. Labour Force and Unemployment Trends in India, 2005-2018 4.3.1 Falling Total Employment is an Unprecedented Trend
India is undergoing as a demographic dividend, which is considered by aincrease in the portion of the employed age population in total population. Through this stage, the Indian economy is transitoryover an unparalleledstage in its employment history, in which total employment (Workforce) is decreasing, besides open unemployed in addition todiscouraged“Not-in-Labour Force-Education-Training” (NLET) youth (a reserve army) are increasingenormously. It has understood that decelerating of total employment growing from around 12 million pa to about 2 million pa throughout 2000 to 2005 as well as 2005 to 2012 was a substance of majordiscussion in India through the first half ofthis period.
The 12 million pa workforce growing in the first half of the last period was the consequenceof a baby prosperous up till the mid-1980s, although the trenddecrease to 2 millionpa caused from dwindlingemployment in agriculture (Himanshu, 2012; Mehrotraet al., 2014), and increasingstaffing (bothboys and girls) at secondary as well as higher education (also Rangarajan et al., 2011; Thomas, 2012;Kannan and Raveendran, 2012; Mehrotra and Parida, 2017).
Though, by reason ofpiercinggrows in enrolment at each level of education during the years,this one was predictable that post-2012 total employment would grow, predominantly in the non-farmsegments. It would have sustained the structural alterationprocedure which started after 2004- 05. Nonethelessinappropriately, for the first time in India’s history,total employment through 2011 to 12 besides 2017 to 18 decreased by 9 million.
The agriculture segmentsustained to recordfalling of employment at the rate of 4.5 million pa(around 27 million in total) over 2011-12 then 2017-18. The portion of employment in agricultureas well as allied segmenttoodipped from 49% to around 44%. Throughout this phase, manufacturing segmenttoologged a 3.5 million fall in jobs, which caused in a decline in its portion of employment from 12.6 to 12.1%. Decliningin manufacturing jobs is the conflicting of the objective of ‘Make in India’, and the conflicting of what is wanted if the procedure of structural alteration is to be continued.
4003
The non-manufacturing segment (mainlyconstruction) which was makingaround 4 million jobs through 2004-05 as well as 2011-12, shaped only around0.6 million pa thru 2011-12 in addition to 2017-18. Sluggishgrowing of construction jobs has negative inferences for less skilled employment, realwages and the occurrence of poverty. Meanwhile real wages continued flat through 2011-12 as well as 2017-18,predominantly in rural parts,it could be contended that the occurrence of poverty may not havedecreased unlike what was expected by some idealists (e.g. Bhalla, 2019).
Table 1.2 SectoralEmployments, Labour Force and Unemployment Trendsin India, 2005-2018
Sectors
Absolute Numbers (million)
Youths (15 to 29 years) Overall Population 2004-05 2011-12 2017-18 2004-05 2011-12 2017-18 Agriculture 85.7 60.7 41.8 268.7 231.9 205.3 Manufacturing 22.4 22.1 18.5 53.9 59.8 56.4 Non-manufacturing 11.6 19.4 17.8 29.4 55.3 58.9 Service 34.5 35.7 37.6 107.3 127.3 144.4 Total employment 154.2 138 115.7 459.4 474.2 465.1 Participating in Education 56.8 99 127 WPR (%) 53.3 41.9 31.4 42 38.6 34.7 LFPR (%) 56.4 44.6 38.3 43 39.5 36.9
Source: Authors’ estimation based on NSS and PLFS unit level data.
4.3.2 Falling Agriculture and Manufacturing Employment across the States in India
Falling employment in agriculture as well as manufacturing segments is seen across the states of India from 2011 to 12 as well as 2017 to 18 (Table 1.2). Though service segment employment produced in greatest states, non-manufacturing segment jobs did not produce much to reimburse the employment drop in altogether agriculture as well as manufacturing segment. Consequently, total employment dropped in over of states.
The states which ranked top by employment loss numbers during 2011-12 besides 2017-18 comprise: Uttar Pradesh (3.2 million decrease), Odisha (2.1 million), Gujarat (1.5 million), Andhra Pradesh (1.5 million), Rajasthan (1.5 million), Kerala (1.4 million ), Jharkhand (1 million ), Maharashtra (0.8 million) and Punjab (0.8 million).
Aalikedroppingtrend is shown in youth employment in agriculture, manufacturing besides nonmanufacturing segmentsover the states. Though, maximum states have recorded positive growing of youth employment in services.
Table 1.3 : States-wise sectoral employment trends in India, 2005-2018 Name of
the States
Manufacturing Agriculture Service Non-manufacturing Total
2004-5 2011-12 2017-18 2004-5 2011-12 2017-18 2004-5 2011-12 2017-18 2004-5 2011-12 2017-18 2004-5 2011-12 2017-18 Andhra Pradesh* 4.3 4 4.1 23.7 21.2 18.3 9.6 11.1 12 2.3 3.7 4.1 40 40.1 38.6 Assam 0.4 0.6 0.8 7.5 6 5.2 2.7 3.3 4.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 10.9 10.8 11.3 Bihar 1.7 1.7 2.5 20.7 18.1 12.8 4.9 6.3 8.4 0.9 3 4.7 28.2 29 28.3 Gujarat 4 5.1 4.9 14.7 12.6 10.4 5.4 6.4 7.4 1.2 1.7 1.8 25.3 25.9 24.4 Haryana 1.2 1.2 1.7 4.7 3.8 2.4 2.4 2.6 3.4 0.8 1.2 1.2 9.1 8.9 8.7 Himachal Pradesh 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 3.3 3.6 3.4 Jammu and Kashmir 0.5 0.5 0.4 2.3 2.1 2.3 1.1 1.4 1.8 0.4 1 1 4.3 5 5.5 Karnataka 2.7 3.2 3.1 17.4 13.1 11.7 6.1 8.1 8.5 1.2 1.8 2.2 27.5 26.2 25.5 Kerala 1.8 1.7 1.3 4.6 3.2 2.2 4.7 5.4 5.4 1.6 2.3 2.2 12.7 12.6 11.2 Madhya Pradesh 2.2 2 2 19.4 16.8 19.7 4.9 5.8 6.8 1.5 3.9 4.1 28 28.4 32.6 Maharashtra 5.6 6 5.7 26.6 24.1 23.1 12.9 15.6 16.5 2.7 3.4 3 47.8 49.1 48.3 Odisha 1.9 1.7 1.1 10.7 9.7 7.5 3.1 3.8 3.8 1.2 2.3 2.9 16.9 17.5 15.4 Punjab 1.4 1.9 1.9 5.3 4 2.7 3 3.5 4.2 1 1.6 1.4 10.6 11 10.2
4004
Rajasthan 2.4 2.5 2.4 16.2 14.1 13.1 4.7 5.5 6.4 3 5.8 4.5 26.3 27.9 26.4 Tamil Nadu 6.3 6.5 6.2 14.8 11.4 8.9 8.7 10 12 2.2 4.5 5 32 32.4 32 Uttar Pradesh 8 8.6 7.3 39.7 35.4 31.4 13 14.4 16.7 3.9 9.2 9 64.6 67.6 64.4 West Bengal 5.5 8.2 6.6 15.2 14.2 13.5 9.7 10.7 12.3 1.6 3.1 4.5 32 36.2 36.9 Delhi 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.1 3.3 4.2 4.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 4.9 5.7 6.2 Chhattisgarh 0.5 0.6 0.6 8.5 8.8 8.9 1.4 1.7 2.3 0.5 1 1.4 10.9 12 13.2 Jharkhand 1.1 0.9 0.9 7.4 5.9 5 1.9 2.5 2.6 1.5 2.4 2.2 11.8 11.8 10.8 Uttarakhand 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.6 1.8 1.5 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 4 3.7 3.4 NE states excl. Assam 0.34 0.25 0.28 3.3 2.8 2.3 1.6 1.7 2.4 0.24 0.98 0.55 5.4 5.8 5.5 All India 53.9 59.8 56.4 268.7 231.9 205.3 107.3 127.3 144.4 29.4 55.3 58.9 459.3 474.3 465Source: Authors’ estimation based on NSS and PLFS unit level data.
Note: * The state Telanganais combined with Andhra Pradesh for comparison.
4.3.3 Labour force and LFPR declined:
The labour forcethose who were looking for work, during 2017-18, increased only by about 10 million to reach 495 million due to both Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR)or the working share of those in working agelookingfor work andWorkParticipationRate(WPR),orshareofthoselooking forworkactually finding work declined from 39.5 percent to about 37 percent, Labour Force Participation Rate(LFPR), and 38.6 percent to about 34.7 percentWork Participation Rate (WPR) between 2011-12 and 2017-18. For youth, Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) fell from 44.6 percent to 38.3 percent, and Work Participation Rate (WPR) fell from 42 percent to 31.4 percent during the same period (Table 1.1) – an indicator of depressedworkers.
The reason of declining overall LFPR is mainly due to the drastic drop of the female LFPR, which declined from about 29 to 22 percent between 2004-05 and 2011-12 and later on to 18 percent by 2017-18 (Figure 2). While the female LFPR in urban areas declined marginally from 18 percent to about16percentduring2005and2018and found 0.5percentagepointriseduring2011-12and2017- 18, which was a good news. A steady fall in rural female LFPR pulled the overall female LFPR down to a historically low level.
It was expected that agricultural mechanization and the structural transformation in rural areas (Himanshu,2012; Mehrotraetal.,2014) affected the female LFPR severely, and was also expected to bounce back and rise, as large number of girls were attending schools and secondary education, who would want to work outside the home (Hirway, 2012; Mehrotraand Parida,2017). There was a rose of Secondary enrolment over 80 percent between 2010 and 2016,with gender parity. But sadly, the evidence is that work outside the home did not materialize. The LFPR of young women declined further from low (about 24 percent) to very low (about 16 percent) level during 2011-12 and 2017-18 (Figure 2). For women, the job market offers few opportunities in rural areas, but is also tight in urban areas, as their LFPR in urban areas has also been declining consistently.
Thecurrentjobmarket is not capable of accommodating the youth. Educated unemployment increased to unprecedented levels, even though theoverallmaleLFPRwas almost constantatabout 56percent,theLFPRofmaleyouth populationshowconsistentdeclinesince2004-05.Itdeclinedfrom75percentto 64percentduring 2004-05 and 2011-12, and further to 59 percent during 2017-18. (In rural areas, it declinedfrom 77percent to about 59 percent, while in urban areas it declined from 68 percent to about 59 percent.).This substantial decline is partly explained by rising enrolment in higher education, a massiveriseinopenunemploymentamongeducatedyouthreflectsthe fact atthecurrentjobmarket.
Table 2: Youth (age 15 to 29 years) unemployment and NLET in Indian states, 2005-2018
Name of the States Open Unemployment rate (%) Open Unemployed (million)
Not in Labour Force, Education and Training
(million) 2004- 05 2011- 12 2017-18 2004- 05 2011- 12 2017- 18 2004-05 2011- 12 2017- 18 Andhra Pradesh* 3.2 5.9 18.9 0.5 0.7 2.2 4.2 5.3 5.8 Assam 7.8 15.0 27.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 2.0 2.5 2.6 Bihar 5.4 9.8 22.8 0.4 0.8 1.8 6.7 8.9 10.9 Gujarat 2.4 1.3 13.3 0.2 0.1 1.0 3.2 4.2 5.2 Haryana 6.3 8.1 20.7 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.1 2.4
4005
Himachal Pradesh 4.7 4.0 18.4 0.06 0.04 0.17 0.1 0.2 0.3 Jammu & Kashmir 6.0 9.5 15.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 Karnataka 2.8 4.4 15.8 0.3 0.3 1.2 3.3 4.3 5.0 Kerala 28.2 20.6 36.3 1.3 0.7 1.0 1.7 1.8 1.3 Madhya Pradesh 2.1 2.6 12.0 0.2 0.2 1.3 3.9 4.8 5.9 Maharashtra 4.7 3.8 15.0 0.8 0.6 1.9 5.5 6.6 7.2 Odisha 12.5 6.5 23.6 0.9 0.3 1.1 2.9 3.2 3.8 Punjab 10.0 5.8 21.6 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.6 2.0 2.0 Rajasthan 2.7 2.9 14.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 3.1 4.0 5.6 Tamil Nadu 5.2 7.8 25.6 0.5 0.7 2.2 3.3 4.5 4.1 Uttar Pradesh 2.7 4.3 16.7 0.6 1.0 3.6 13.8 16.2 20.7 West Bengal 7.7 8.8 13.2 0.9 1.0 1.5 7.5 6.9 8.8 Delhi 10.4 11.3 22.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.6 Chhattisgarh 2.0 4.1 10.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.5 Jharkhand 5.5 7.7 20.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.7 2.4 3.0 Uttarakhand 5.1 10.2 27.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 NE states excl. Assam 9.0 16.3 26.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0 All India 5.4 6.1 17.8 8.9 9.0 25.1 69.5 83.7 100.2Source: Authors’ estimation based on NSS and PLFS unit level data. Note: * The state Telanganais combined with Andhra Pradesh.
5. IDENTIFYING THE SUB-SECTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR SLOW GROWTH OF NON-FARM JOBS,2005-2018
5.1Manufacturing Employment:
It has been found that mostlabourintensivesubsectorscontributedtogrowingoverallandyouthemployment in manufacturing during 2004-05 and 2011-12. However, these same subsectors were responsible for the maximum decline of jobs post 2011-12.The decline occurred in textile, wood products,paper products, furniture and food and beverages, rubber and plastic products etc. Since labour intensivebusinesses in sub-sectors are micro and small units, demonetization and other short-term unfavourable economic conditions might have been responsible for the decline.
Sub-sectors like Machinery Equipment, Electrical and Electronics Machinery, Motor Vehicles, and Basic Metals, few subsectors have been contributing growth of employment consistently. These eventhoughtheirshareoftotalemployment is quite low.
5.2Non-manufacturing Employment:
Construction.sector is the top-most employment generating sub sector and it is found that during 2017-18 out of total 59 million jobs in non-manufacturing sectors which is contributed about 92percent as about 54.3 million. In construction alone, the number of youth employed declined from 17.8 to 16.6 million between 2011-12 and 2017-18.
The second and third largest subsectors of non-manufacturing are the electricity, water and gas supply (2.8 million, about 4.8 percent) and mining of metal ores, coal and lignite etc. (1.6 million, about 2.7 percent) respectively. Although overall employment in these subsectors increased, the absolute decline of youth employment in these sectors puts a further question mark on their future job prospects, given that their participation in manufacturing employment has alsofallen.
The non-manufacturing sector has both forward and backward linkages with the manufacturing sector. The industrial policy aiming to improve manufacturing would have a knock-on effect on the growth of employment in the non-manufacturing sector. Moreover, this effect would also likely to boost growth of jobs in modern services.
4006
Type of Industry andSub-sectors
Total employment (million) Youth employment (million)
2004-05 2011-12 2017-18 2004-05 2011-12 2017-18 Manufacturing Sector
Food & Beverages 5.5 6.4 5.9 1.9 2.1 1.7
Tobacco Products 4.7 4.9 3.3 1.9 1.7 1.0 Textiles 9.7 9.2 8.2 4.5 3.9 2.8 Wearing Apparel 7.2 9.6 9.8 3.4 3.8 3.3 Leather Products 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 Wood Products 5.2 3.9 3.0 1.9 1.2 0.7 Paper Products 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 Printing Media 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 Petroleum Products 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Chemical Products 2.0 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.4
Rubber & Plastics 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 Non-metallic Products 4.5 5.0 4.1 1.5 1.9 1.3 Basic Metals 1.0 1.5 1.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 Fabricated Metals 2.6 3.0 2.8 1.1 1.0 0.9 Machinery Equipment 1.3 1.0 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 Electronics Machinery 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 Electrical Machinery 0.7 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 Medical Instruments 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.3 Motor Vehicles 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 Other Transports 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 Furniture 4.3 2.4 2.2 2.0 0.7 0.7
Jewellery& Sports goods 0.0 3.3 2.6 0.0 1.2 0.9
Recycling 0.1 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.7
Manufacturing Total 53.9 59.8 56.4 22.4 22.1 18.5 Non-Manufacturing Sector
Mining and Quarrying 2.7 2.6 2.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 Electricity, water and gas 1.2 2.5 2.8 0.1 0.7 0.6 Construction 25.6 50.3 54.3 10.7 17.8 16.6
Non-manufacturing Total 29.4 55.3 58.9 11.6 19.4 17.8
Source: Authors’ estimation based on NSS and PLFS unit level data.
6. 2020 JOBSCENARIO IN INDIA
So far, the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) has witnesses that the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in jobs moving away from high labour productive sectors such as manufacturing and services to low productivity sectors such as agriculture and construction with manufacturing as only a modest recovery in this fiscal year. It has also revealed from the Consumer Pyramids Household Survey of CMIE that employment in agriculture sector reached at 160 million resulting in total employment in the sector in the quarter ended on September 30 at 158 million, which is 5.5% higher than the corresponding quarter a year ago. All most 33 million jobs lost during the pandemic by the quarter ended December 2020, in the real estate and construction industry during the lock down. It has also come to know that the employment in manufacturing is 11.4 million less in the fiscal so far, despite a quarter-on-quarter recovery, compared to 40 million employed in manufacturing in 2019-20.“More significantly, every major manufacturing industry, except pharmaceuticals, employed less people in all three quarters of 2020-21 compared to the employment in 2019-20,”
Though service sector employment has being recovered,some extent but the educational establishments do not have bettered position. Total employment in the services sector stood at 148 million in the quarter ended December 2020 compared to 157 million employed in the quarter of March 2020.
In the quarter ended December 2020, 5.9 million jobs were lost in the education sector compared to 14.5 million in the quarter of March 2020. Employment in education was down to 9.1 million in the quarter ended December 2020.According to the published data on employment from the Labour Bureau, CMIE,NSS, Malhotra report, it has been found that unemployment rose to a four decade high of 6.1 percent in 2017-18
4007
Moreover, it stands at a four year high since the government’s demonetization drive in 2016 (Jha 2019a). According to free think tank, Centre for Monitoring of Indian Economy (CMIE) the unemployment rate as of February 2017 climbed to 7.2 percent (Kumar 2019). According to Mahesh Vyas (2018a), Director and CEO, CMIE, labour participation fell sharply in the result of demonetization from 47 percent in the pre-demonetization period to 42.5 percent by August 2018. This meant that about 4 percent of working age population actually moved out of the labour force after demonetization.
Furthermore, a survey report of CMIE( Center for Monitoring Indian Economy Pvt) said that India’s unemployment ratehave hiked to more than 20% as the economy lost jobs after a nationwide lockdown. Based on sample size of 9,429 observations it was inferred by Mahesh Vyas, the chief executive officer of CMIE, the jobless rate was 23.4% for the week ended April 5. It is evident that there was a significant fall in employment the jobless rate to be 8.7% compared with 7.8% in February. The government publishes unemployment data every year. The last report, released in 2019, put the unemployment rate at a 45-year high of 6.1%.
6.1 COVID Impact on Various Sectors in India: 6.1.1Aerospace &Defense Sector Overview-2020:
The Aerospace and Defence Industry in India is a strategically important sector in the country. It has strength of over 1.3 million active personnel.The aerospace and defence industry has clearly seen the consequences of COVID-19. Historically, the Indian aviation sector has contributed around $ 72 billion to the national GDP. With the ongoing lockdown, even if we assume a 25% decline in aerospace industry revenues, it comes to around $1.5 billion to $2 billion of losses.
6.1.2Agriculture Sector Overview-2020:
India has the 10th-largest arable land resources in the world and accounts for 7.39% of the global agricultural output. The agriculture sector is one of the biggest sectors in India. In fact, it is a key contributor accounting for about 18% of the GDP.
Agriculture being the backbone of the country, the government has classified it as an essential category. Therefore, the agriculture industry in India is less likely to see a major impact of COVID-19. Besides, the government is taking active measures to minimize its effect on the country’s agriculture sector. They have announced various exemptions in the agriculture sector for labourers, seeds and farm-related activities. Moreover, The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has also issued crop-related advisories to the farmers. They are asked to exercise basic precautions and safety measures during different crop stages such as harvesting, post-harvest operations, storage, and marketing
6.1.3Education Sector Overview-2020:
India holds an important place in the global education industry. India has one of the largest networks of higher education institutions in the world. However, there is still a lot of potential for further development in the education system.Covid-19 has prompted experts to rethink the conventional mode of the education industry. With this in mind, digital education appears to be a viable solution.
6.1.4 Automotive Sector Overview-2020:
The automotive industry accounts for 7.5% of India’s total GDP. The Indian automotive sector before Covid-19 crisis was already seeing a downfall of nearly 18% in FY20. The situation turned even worse with the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing lockdowns across the country and the remaining world.
6.1.5Construction Sector Overview-2020:
It is the third largest contributor to economic growth. Moreover, the industry employs more than 40 million people and has a large pool of low-cost workers. Besides, various governmental flagship programs like ‘Smart Cities’, ‘Housing for All’, ‘Make in India’ and ‘Atal Mission for Urban Rejuvenation and Transformation’ (AMRUT) will further drive growth.
The construction industry has come to a standstill due to the pandemic coronavirus impact. It is estimated that most of the construction sites are running at 50% of their run rate. This is because the fear of infection is keeping the workers’ attendance at less than 70%. As per the industry body, at present, there are close to 20,000 ongoing construction projects at the pan India level. These engage a workforce of around 8.5 million only in construction work. Some of these projects are delayed while others are cancelled owing to COVID-19. Besides, there are
4008
supply chain bottlenecks that result in reduced or no supply of equipment and materials including structural steel and glass from Asia.
7. CONCLUSION
The Indian job market is passing through an unprecedented phase in its employment history during the pandemic, in which total employment (Workforce) is declining in various sectors most likely, manufacturing, service, construction, IT sectors to agriculture etc. The employment position in India was weakening since 2019, but the corona virus pandemic has made matters far worse .Urban employment, which is represented as a bulk of salaried jobs in the country, is deteriorating with every passing month, according to recent reports by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, a Mumbai-based think tank. It is evident that21 per cent of the overall workforce had lost their jobs due to the pandemic. The pandemic has crippled economies all over the world, but India faces a greater challenge largely due to its billion-plus population and stark wealth inequality.
Reference:
1. Bhalla, S. S. &Bhasin, K. (2019). Rethink poverty — and policy, Indian Express (News Paper), June29. 2. Economic Survey. (2018). A New, Exciting Bird’s-Eye View of the Indian Economy Through the 3. Economic Survey. (2019). Nourishing Dwarfs to become Giants: Reorienting policies for MSME
Growth. Economic Survey 2018-19, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Volume I, Chapter 3, pp.57-77.
4. Menon, Rethy B. "RECENT TRENDS IN INDUSTRY IN ADOPTING CROWDSOURCING AND
PROBLEM SOLVING FOR EMPLOYEES PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO IT INDUSTRY." International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development. December (2017).
5. Goldar, B. (2013). Determinants of Import Intensity of India’s Manufactured Exports Under the New Policy Regime. Indian Economic Review, 48(1), 221-237.
6. GST, Economic Survey 2017-18, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Volume I, Chapter 2, pp.32-42.
7. Jha, S. U. S. H. M. I. T. A., and AJAI KUMAR Singhal. "A recent study on attrition trends and retention practices in India: Issues and implications." International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research 4.2 (2014): 47-58.
8. Himanshu (2011). Employment Trends in India: A Re-examination. Economic and Political Weekly, 46 (37), 43-59.
9. Hirway, I. (2012). Missing Labour Force: An explanation. Economic and Political Weekly, 47 (37), 67-72.
10. NGUYEN, DONGTHI THAO, and THU CHUNG KIEUTHI. "NEW TRENDS IN TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION IN EDUCATION AND CAPACITIES OF UNIVERSITIES LECTURERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC." International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD) 10 (2020): 1709-1714.
11. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com
12. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/india/getting-ahead-of-coronavirus-saving-lives-and-livelihoods-in-india
13. Pawariya, Vikash, and S. Jheeba. "Economic Analysis of Costs-Return, Income and Employment in Poultry Enterprise in Jaipur District of Rajasthan State." International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research (IJASR) Vol 5.1 (2015): 73-80.
14. Kannan, K.P. & G. Raveendran. (2012). Counting and Profiling the Missing Labour Force. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(6), 77-80.
15. Vijay, Swati. "A Study of Impact on Employment in Organised and Unorganised Retail Sector with Special Reference to Maharashtra State." International Journal of Human Resource Management 4.2 (2015): 1-10.
16. Mehrotra, S. &Parida, J. K. (2017). Why is the labour force participation of women declining in India? World Development, 98, 360-380.
17. Menaria, Sneha, and Shankar Chaudhary. "A Study on work life balance of Moonlight Women employees in IT sector in Pune region." International Academy of Science Engineering and Technology 6.5 (2017).
