Abstract
Labour market employment statistics covers less than 50% of all the work performed each week, and on a gender basis, the coverage is 75% of men’s work and 33% of women’s work (Ironmonger,1999). The Periodic Labour Force Survey (2018-19) results show a gap of 35.4% and 40.6% between male–female LFPR (usual status: principal + subsidiary). About 42.5% of the women (age group 15+ years) are engaged in domestic duties only while 14.2% engaged in domestic duties are also engaged in free collection of goods (vegetables, roots, firewood, cattle feed, etc.), sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc. for household consumption. As the burden of unpaid domestic duties falls largely on the females, their activities go uncaptured. It is, therefore, important to understand the time disposition of women and their burden of work so as to help informed policy formulation inclusive of women. Using the results of the Time Use Survey (2019) and the Periodic Labour Force Surveys, this study tries to better understand the gamut of paid and unpaid economic activities undertaken by women in India and aims to get better insights into the factors affecting the female labour force participation in rural and urban India. This study reflects that the double burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving activities is prevalent irrespective of the education level of the women, the income levels of the household and is equally affecting women in rural as well as urban Indian households. The findings support the fact that the predominance of time disposition on non-SNA activities negatively affects the choice of economic activities undertaken by women and there is a need to address this divide of time disposition of men and women in non-SNA activities in order to increase the female Labour Force Participation. Using cross country comparison of the G20 countries, it is observed that distribution of domestic and caregiving activities among men and women has a positive impact on the labour force participation of women. While it may be difficult to quantify the entire gamut of unpaid domestic and care giving activities into the SNA and come with improved GDP estimate, ways to reduce the burden of unpaid domestic duties can always be thought of as mentioned in the section on policy interventions.
Keywords
Introduction
India’s working-age population would continue to increase through 2041, rising by 96.5 million during 2021–2031 and by 41.5 million during 2031–2041 and India’s demographic dividend will peak around 2041, when the share of working-age, i.e. 20–59 years, population is expected to hit 59%. 1 Women account for almost half of the total population in India, 48.59% in 2016. 2 As per UN Women, 3 only 63% of women aged 25–54 years are in the labour force compared to 94% of men of the same age. In India, 4 female labour force participation rates (FLFPR) started showing decline from the early 1990s when the rural female labour force participation rate declined from 33% in 1993–1994 to 25.3% in 2011–2012 and FLFPR for urban females declined from 16.5% to 15.5% during the same period. Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2017–June 2018); Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018–June 2019) that the rural FLFPR further declined to 18.2% in 2017–2018 and 19.7% in 2018–2019 while the urban FLFPR has been 15.9% and 16.1% during this period.
Among the economically active age group of 15+ years, the rural FLFPR was 35.8% in 2011–2012 and 20.5% among urban females. Based on Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018–June 2019), the rural FLFPR is observed to be 26.4% while the urban FLFPR has been 20.4%. The corresponding LFPR for rural males in 2018–2019 has been 76.4% (15+ age group) and for urban males, it was 73.7%. This huge gap between male and female labour force participation rates definitely has repercussions on female’s overall socio-economic well-being. The Global Gender Gap Index (2018) estimates that 108 years are needed to close the global gender gap and India is ranked 142 in the sub Index ‘Economic Participation & Opportunities’ among 149 countries. The ‘25 by 25’ target agreed by G20 nations aims to reduce the gender gap in labour force participation by 25% by 2025. Gender Equality and Empowerment is one among the Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda, 2030). Goal 5.4 specifically mentions ‘to recognise and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies, and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate’. Goal 8 calls for ‘accessibility of decent work for both men and women in order to ensure inclusive growth’ while Goal 11 aims to ensure ‘safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems and safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces for women’. Thus, SDGs clearly emphasise the importance of equitable and inclusive growth which is not possible unless we ensure that the 48% of the female population in the country are socially and economically empowered.
Participation in economic activities empowers the woman and gives her autonomy to take care of overall well-being of the household by taking lead in decision-making, accessing health care, improve learning outcomes of her children, improving domestic savings and work for the larger interests of the household thereby help improve the human capital development. The ‘Food and Nutrition Security Analysis, India, 2019’ reports significant levels of malnutrition in the form of stunting, underweight and wasting among under-5 children, which is an intergenerational issue beginning from the poor nutritional status of mother leading to undernourished children with poor educational and economic attainment. For India to capitalise on its demographic advantage, we need a productive labour force, for which the women of the household need to be socially and economically empowered.
Women in India are mostly engaged in domestic unpaid activities which are considered as outside the production boundary of SNA 2008 5 (Code 92 and 93 in PLFS Survey) and this contribution is left unaccounted for when arriving at labour statistics. As per Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018–June 2019), in rural India, 37.4% of female members in 15+ age group outside the labour force are engaged in attending to domestic duties only, while 18.3% in 15+ age group were reported attending domestic duties and were also engaged in free collection of goods (vegetables, roots, firewood, cattle feed, etc.), sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc. for household use in addition to domestic duties, which are considered classified as outside labour force as per definitions used in PLFS. The corresponding share of females in 15+ age group engaged in these two activity status in urban India is 53.8% and 5.3%. The ratio of female to male labour force participation rate (%) (modelled ILO estimate) for India is 27.4, which is on lower side when compared with China (80.1), Brazil (74.1), Russia (78.2), South Africa (78.8) [BRICS countries], Argentina (70.6), Australia (85.5), Canada (87.2), France (84.9), Germany (83.0), Indonesia (65.5), Italy (69.4), Japan (74.7), Republic of Korea (73.9), Mexico (58.1), Saudi Arabia (28.2), Turkey (47.5), UK (85.4), USA (82.8) and EU (79.9) [G20 group of countries]. 5 Indian women contribute 17% to the GDP which is less than half of the global average and the growth rate can be boosted by 1.5% age points to 9% per year if around 50% of the women could join the workforce (Annette Dixon, World Bank South Asia Vice President 6 ). India is one of the fastest growing economies and aspires to become a $5-trillion economy by 2024. Thus, harnessing the potential of woman’s labour force participation is a key to achieve this target.
Literature Review and Data Sources
Studies undertaken to demystify the low female labour force participation highlight the income effect, education effect, lack of opportunities commensurate with the skills of the women, social and cultural norms and the disproportionately double burden of domestic unpaid work on women as the main barriers that limit the full potential utilisation of women’s participation in labour markets. In its report ‘Achieving "25 by 25": Actions to make Women's Labour Inclusion a G20 Priority’, Langou et al. (2018) observe social norms and customs and the sexual division of labour are the two inter-related factors at play behind these gender gaps.
Jayachandran (2020) observes that ‘the norm that women bear primary responsibility for housework and child care might be one of most challenging norms to change, and, moreover, it is present in essentially all societies’. Those women who participate in labour markets have to face the additional burden of unpaid domestic activities along with the economic activities.
Rangarajan et al. (2011) have attributed the increase in female education enrolment and income effect as the cause for the declining trend in FLFPR. Vinoj (2013) observed that the upward social mobility due to growing income is probably symbolised by women’s withdrawal from paid labour and their confinement to unpaid domestic activities. Kapsos et al. (2014) estimated the negative impact of increased attendance in education and higher levels of household consumption on female labour force participation. Further, the authors observed that religion and social perceptions of women, women’s level of education, household size and income and the presence of young children in the household all influence the likelihood of India’s women to participate in the labour market. Sanghi et al. (2015) observed that along with the income effect and education effect highlighted in most of the studies, the structural change in the economy has also affected the female labour force participation. The increase in income in rural households has led the females to withdraw from unpaid, helper or casual work unless it is remunerative (MGNREGA). Low skill levels, non-availability of non-farm jobs closer to home were other factors that contributed to the decline in rural FLFPR. Mehrotra and Parida (2017) observed that improved standard of living and mechanisation of agriculture are important drivers for declining FLFPR and stressed upon the need for non-farm rural jobs and safe working and living environment in small towns and cities to ensure better female participation in labour markets. The study by Kanjilal-Bhaduri (2018) mentions that ‘the interplay of economic, social, cultural and demographic factors has forced women to stay out of labour force’.
Despite these identified factors for low FLFPR, what is not measured is the time spent and the disproportionately high burden of unpaid domestic duties and caregiving activities on women, which is constraining women from actively participating in the labour market. Ironmonger (1999) observes that ‘the unpaid work of women and men adds value to the commodities purchased from the market or obtained from subsistence agriculture, fishing or hunting’. One of the most used methods to capture the unpaid activities undertaken by household members is through Time Use Surveys. OECD 7 defines TUS as ‘Time-use surveys record information on how people allocate their time across different day-to-day activities. The surveys involve respondents keeping a diary of their activities over one or several representative days for a given period’. Time Use Surveys give insights into how the 24 hours are spent or utilised by a person among different categories like work-related activities, unpaid work, caregiving work, personal care, leisure and other activities.
The Government of India conducted a pilot Time Use Survey in 1998–1999 which covered six selected states, namely, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Meghalaya for the period July 1998 to June 1999. The survey results indicated that irrespective of the characteristics of respondents, generally women spent double the time as compared to men in activities relating to taking care of the children, sick and elderly. Women reported spending 2.1 hours per day on cooking, 1.1 hour in cleaning the household and utensils, while participation of men in these activities was nominal. Nationwide Time Use Survey was conducted during January–December 2019. The TUS collected information on the time spent by the household members on nine major activity divisions based on Time Use Survey in India - 2019 (2020). These nine divisions include employment and related activities; production of goods for own final use; unpaid domestic services for household members; unpaid caregiving services for household members; unpaid volunteer, trainee and other unpaid work; learning; socialising and communication, community participation and religious practice; culture, leisure, mass-media and sports practices and self-care and maintenance. The findings of this Time Use in India-2019 (TUS) as well as Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018–June 2019) are used to further examine the factors attributed to low female labour force participation in India.
Discussion on the Major Findings From TUS
Table 1 shows the percentage of persons of age 6 years and above, who participated in the nine major divisions of activities during the reference period of 24 hours. It is seen that the percentage of females, irrespective of they being in rural (82.1, 28.2) or urban areas (79.2, 26.3), is participating more in the unpaid domestic services and unpaid caregiving services as compared to the males.
Percentage Participation and Percentage Share in Activity-wise Time Disposition per Day (Except Self-care and Maintenance).
Among the household members, 82% females (with average of 301 minutes or 5.01 hours in a day per participant) and 27.7% males (with average of 98 minutes or 1.63 hours in a day per participant) in rural areas reported to have performed unpaid domestic services for household members. About 28.2% rural women reported having spent time in unpaid caregiving services for household members with average time spent of 132 minutes or 2.2 hours in a day per participant, whereas 14.4% rural males reported having spent time in unpaid caregiving services for household members with average time spent of 77 minutes or 1.28 hours per participant. Only 2% rural women with average time of 98 minutes per participant and 2.8% rural male with average time of 99 minutes per participant have undertaken unpaid volunteer, trainee and other unpaid work. Thus, it can be seen that females spend on an average in a day 3 times more time on unpaid domestic services, 1.7 times more on unpaid caregiving activities and almost equal time on unpaid volunteer, trainee and other unpaid work in rural areas although the participation rate is quite low in the latter category. The situation in urban sector is more or less the same. Urban female on an average spent 293 minutes or 4.88 hours in a day per participant (participation rate of 79.2%) on unpaid domestic services for household members vis-à-vis 94 minutes or 1.56 hours by urban males (participation rate of 22.6%), 138 minutes or 2.3 hours on unpaid caregiving services for household members (participation rate of 26.3%) vis-à-vis 75 minutes or 1.25 hours by urban males (participation rate of 13.2%) and 101 minutes (participation rate of 2.2%) on unpaid volunteer, trainee and other unpaid work vis-à-vis 111 minutes (participation rate of 2.5%) by urban males.
Only 19.2% rural females and 16.7% urban females have reported having undertaken employment and related activities vis-à-vis 56.1% rural males and 59.8% urban males. In addition, 25% rural females and 8.3% urban females have reported that they had undertaken production of goods for own final use as compared to 19.1% rural males and 3.4% urban males. If we take a look at the average time spent in a day by rural females compared to rural males, it is seen that among those women who reported undertaking employment and related activities spent on an average 317 minutes or 5.28 hours in a day per participant in these activities, whereas males spent 434 minutes or 7.23 hours in a day per participant. Among urban sector, women on an average spent 375 minutes or 6.25 hours in a day per participant in employment and related activities, whereas males spent 514 minutes or 8.56 hours in a day per participant. Similarly, rural and urban women spent 123 minutes and 64 minutes in a day per participant, respectively, in production of goods for own final use, whereas rural and urban men spent 203 minutes per participant and 134 minutes in a day per participant, respectively, in production of goods for own final use.
It would be interesting to take a look at the time disposition of unpaid domestic and caregiving work for women who reported that they have undertaken economic and related activities (part of the workforce) and those who are outside the labour force (codes 92 and 93 in the parlance of Employment Unemployment Surveys).
Rural women who were part of workforce (code 11-51 as principal activity status) spent on an average 245 minutes in a day per participant on unpaid domestic services to household members (participation rate of 94.7%), 103 minutes on unpaid caregiving services (participation rate of 24.6%). Those who reported code 92 and 93 as their usual principal activity status spent 355 minutes in a day on an average per participant on unpaid domestic services to household members (participation rate of 97.1%), 142 minutes in a day on an average per participant on unpaid caregiving services (participation rate of 39%). Thus, those rural women who were part of workforce, in a day on an average per participant, spend 2 hours less on unpaid domestic services compared to those women who have reported to be engaged in activity code 92 and 93 and 39 minutes less on unpaid caregiving services compared to those women who have reported to be engaged in activity code 92 and 93.
In urban sector, women who were part of the workforce spent on an average 214 minutes in a day per participant on unpaid domestic services for household members (participation rate of 88.2%) and 102 minutes in a day per participant on unpaid caregiving services for household members (participation rate of 22.1%). Those women in urban sector who reported code 92 and 93 in usual principal activity status on an average spent 343 minutes in a day per participant on unpaid domestic services to household members (participation rate of 96.2%), 148 minutes in a day per participant on unpaid caregiving services (participation rate of 36.6%). Thus, those urban women who were part of labour force approximately spent 2 hours on an average less on unpaid domestic and 46 minutes less on an average per participant in a day on unpaid caregiving services compared to those women who have reported to be engaged in activity code 92 and 93.
Thus, it is seen that combining the paid and unpaid activities, women are experiencing the double burden of domestic duties and this burden is almost same (proportion of time spent) in rural and urban sector for women. Generally, it is believed that there are few avenues to outsource domestic and caregiving work in rural areas and hence, the burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving work on the rural women may be higher than that on the urban women. However, the findings of TUS reveal that there is little difference between the two.
A closer look at the time spent on the employment and related activities and production of goods for own use among rural and urban women, who are part of workforce and those who are attending unpaid domestic and caregiving activities, reveal some interesting facts. While those rural women in workforce as per UPS have reported average time spent of 367 minutes in a day per participant in employment and related activities with participation rate of 69.5%, 148 minutes on an average per participant on production of goods for own final use with participation rate of 34.2%), women who have reported code 92 and 93 as principal activity status code have spent on an average 200 minutes in a day per participant on employment and related activities with participation rate of 7.3%, 117 minutes in a day on an average per day per participant on production of goods for own use with participation rate of 29.5%. The urban females who are part of the workforce spend on an average 417 minutes per participant in a day on employment and related activities with participation rate of 83.3% and an average of 66 minutes per participant in a day on production of goods for own final use with participation rate of 9.7%, whereas those who reported code 92, 93 of UPS spent 211 minutes per participant in a day with participation rate of 3.3% and 64 minutes in a day per participant with participation rate of 10.5% on employment and related activities and production of goods for own final use, respectively. Thus, the principal status perhaps does not capture the participation of women in workforce especially the subsistence-based activities and production of goods for own final use especially in case of rural women. These women (code 92, 93 of UPS) who have reported as out of labour force as per UPS are also found taking up economic activities of lesser duration which may be captured in subsidiary status or current weekly status of Employment Unemployment Surveys. But then production of goods for own final use (except the primary goods and generation of fixed capital) is out of coverage of definition of economic activity. Moreover, women themselves may not be recognising the unpaid activities undertaken by them as those falling within the definition of production boundary of SNA and these contributions can be captured using the Time Use Surveys. Also, the average time spent by the women on employment and production of goods for own use vis-à-vis men strengthen the gendered stereotypes that males are primary bread winners and the responsibility of housework and caregiving is that of women, which most of the time force women to take up economic activities in the time available after attending to the domestic and caregiving duties. This time constraint restrains women from taking up full-time economic activities as men do and hence settle for avenues which suit their priorities and requirements.
Understanding the Economic Activities Undertaken by Women Through Time Use Survey
Participation Rate and Minutes Spent in a Day Spent on an Average per Participant Irrespective of Whether It Is a Major Activity or Not (Considering All the Activities in a Time Slot) for Age Group 15–59 in Employment and Related Activities.
Participation Rate and Minutes Spent in a Day Spent on an Average per Participant Irrespective of Whether It Is a Major Activity or Not (Considering All the Activities in a Time Slot) for Age Group 15–59 in Production of Goods for Own Final Use.
Participation Rate and Minutes Spent in a Day Spent on an Average per Participant Irrespective of Whether It Is a Major Activity or Not (Considering All the Activities in a Time Slot) for Age Group 15–59 in Unpaid Domestic Services for Household Members.
Participation Rate and Minutes Spent in a Day Spent on an Average per Participant Irrespective of Whether It Is a Major Activity or Not (Considering All the Activities in a Time Slot) for Age Group 15–59 in Unpaid Caregiving Services for Household Members.
Rural men of age group 15–59 have reported employment in household enterprises to produce goods with participation rate of 40.4% (average time spent of 369 minutes in a day per participant) and participation rate of around 16% for employment in household enterprises to provide services (average time spent of 417 minutes in a day per participant) (Table 2). Women are mostly engaged in household enterprises to produce goods rather than services in rural sector. In production of goods for own use (Table 3), it is observed that participation rate of around 17% (average time spent of 216 minutes in a day per participant) has been observed in ‘Agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining for own final use’ among rural men. In unpaid domestic services for household members, highest participation rate has been observed in ‘Shopping for own household members’ (10.8%) for rural men whereas only 3.8% participation rate has been reported by rural women (Table 4).
A similar analysis of urban females indicates that participation rate of 6.3% and 6.7% is reported in employment in corporations, government and non-profit institutions, and employment in household enterprises to provide services, respectively, with average time of 376 and 324 minutes in a day per participant (Table 2). The overall participation rate is lower among urban females (20%) as against 22.6% reported by rural female in employment and related activities. The participation rate in production of goods for own final use is 9.4% with average time of 63 minutes in a day per participant reported by urban females as against 28.6% with average time of 123 minutes in a day per participant by rural females (Table 3). Urban women have participation rate of 84.6% (with average time of 205 minutes in a day per participant) in food and meals management and preparation, 68.7% (with average time of 72 minutes in a day per participant) in cleaning and maintaining of own dwelling and surroundings and 52.6% (with average time of 68 minutes in a day per participant) in care and maintenance of textiles and footwear. Urban women have also reported participation rate of 10.8% in shopping for own household members as against only 3.8% participation rate has been reported by rural women (Table 4). About 29.6% urban women reported to have participated in caregiving activity ‘childcare and instruction’ with average time spent of 140 minutes in a day per participant (Table 5).
Thus, the time disposition among rural and urban women is almost the same for unpaid activities whereas differs in respect of employment and related activities and production of goods for final use. It may be noted that the unpaid domestic and caregiving services with high participation rates are such that they may be substituted with hired worker provided that there are economic incentives to do so. If the labour market conditions are favourable and the opportunity costs of not participating in economic activities are high, high wages, conducive environment for work and division of work through cooperation at home (fair gender-based division of work), then these may positively influence the decision of the women. However, as observed by Washbrook (2007) from data on UK Time Use Survey (2000), ‘whilst gender specialization would be reduced by increased female wages, this will come largely via the substitution of purchased goods and services for the domestic tasks normally carried out by women, rather than via the substitution of male domestic work for female domestic work’. From three-digit classification used in Time Use Survey in India - 2019 (2020), it is observed that only 0.1% and 0.3% rural women have reported to have participated in providing paid personal care and paid domestic services in household enterprises. This clearly indicated that it is not possible to procure all the services normally done by women for household members, but unpaid services like instructing, teaching, training, helping children, care and maintenance of textiles and footwear, cleaning and maintenance need to be quantified in terms of their economic value in order to capture the missing contribution of women to the national accounts and also to the development of human capital.
It is also interesting to see the participation rate and time spent (as reported in Time Use Survey, 2019) on travelling and commuting for employment by men and women. The participation rate is around 13% for both rural and urban women with average time of 69 and 75 minutes spent in a day per participant as against participation rate of 51.7% and 58.3% for rural and urban males with average time of 84 minutes and 85 minutes, respectively, spent in a day per participant on travelling and commutation for employment (Table 2). Thus, it may be inferred that women prefer work opportunities close to their home or rather employment in household enterprises to provide services.
Unfolding the Income Effect
The effect of increased household income on decision to participate in the labour market has been discussed by Mincer (1962). Mincer observes that ‘increase in one individual's income may not result in a decrease in his hours of work, but in those of other family members…. an increase in the market wage rate for some family member makes both the consumption of leisure and the production of home services by that individual costlier to the family, and will as a matter of rational family decision encourage greater market labor input by him (her)’. Mincer further observes that women need to make choice between leisure, work at home and work in market. Income is assumed to have negative effect on total amount of work (market as well as home) and positive impact on demand for leisure. Thus, increase in income levels should ideally lead to substitution of woman unpaid work with domestic servants, domestic automated appliances and processed food. However, Mincer observes that the substitutability is a matter of degree. ‘The lesser the substitutability the weaker the negative income effect on hours of work at home, and the stronger the income effect on hours of work in the market’.
Kapsos et al. (2014) observed that increased attendance in education and shift in the distribution towards higher household consumption levels contributed to decline in female participation. Further, the authors estimated that the shift in the distribution towards higher consumption levels had negative impact on overall participation rates in India which accounted for around 9% of the total decline in female participation between 2005 and 2010. The trend in LFPR in different MPCE decile classes as per Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018–June 2019) is indicated in Figure 1.
Participation Rate and Minutes Spent in a Day Spent on an Average per Participant Irrespective of Whether It Is a Major Activity or Not (Considering All the Activities in a Time Slot) Across UMPCE Quintile Classes.
The participation rate in employment and related activities reported by rural females gradually increases with the UMPCE quintile classes, although the average time spent across all quintile classes in a day per participant is approximately 6 hours. More or less similar participation rates are reported for production of goods for own final use albeit with a slightly decreasing trend with average time spent of 2 hours per participant in a day. It is interesting to see that the participation rate and the average time spent in a day per participant in unpaid domestic services for household members increases across the UMPCE quintile classes from 76.4% (293 minutes) to 86.5% (304 minutes) from lowest to highest UMPCE quintile among the rural women thus indicating that the higher income of the household does not free the rural women from unpaid domestic services. The participation rates in unpaid caregiving activities show a gradually declining trend across the UMPCE classes from 34.8% to 20.7% but the average time spent per participant in a day is almost the same across the UMPCE quintile classes (approximately 2 hours) (Table 6). The declining participation rates across UMPCE quintile classes indicate that there may be substitution of these activities by means of outsourcing among the high-income households, thereby decreasing the participation rates. The gender-division of labour in the households does not change much with change in the level of income of the household. Also, the increase in participation rate and average time disposition in economic and related activities does not change the gender-division of work (men still contribute less to the domestic unpaid services compared to women and increase in the spending capacity does not lead to hiring of these domestic unpaid services). This may be due to the non-availability of workers to discharge domestic duties or the perception that some household domestic and caregiving activities cannot be outsourced but have to be taken care of by the women of the household is still deeply rooted.
A similar analysis for urban women shows similar trends across the UMPCE quintile classes for the unpaid domestic and caregiving services as seen in urban women with respect to participation rates and average time spent in a day per participant. The average time spent in a day per participant on unpaid domestic services for household members in urban areas is slightly less than 5 hours. Urban areas as compared to rural areas have availability of hired workers for some of the activities under unpaid domestic services but still even among the highest income quintile, there is no apparent decrease in the average time spent on these activities. Thus, perception of traditional role of the women seems be a stronger reason than non-availability of hired worker for domestic work. Also, this double burden of work may be the prime reason for the women (both in urban and rural areas) to withdraw from undertaking economic activities. Also, baring the declining trend in participation rates in unpaid caregiving activities for household members from lowest to highest UMPCE quintile classes among urban women, the average time spent in a day per participant in unpaid domestic work increases from lowest to highest UMPCE quintile class among urban women (Table 6).
Education Effect
As per Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018–June 2019), the FLFPR (rural) shows a decline from 30.7% to 15.6% as we move from illiterate to higher secondary level of education and then increases (Figure 2).
The percentage share of females in the age group 15–29 who have reported attending educational institutions as their usual status (principal + subsidiary) has increased from 23% in 2011 to 29% in 2018 in rural sector while that in urban areas has increased from 32% to 36.3%. 8 Hence, with increasing population in this age group, education effect (more and more girls pursuing education) is one of the reasons for decline in FLFPR especially among rural as well as urban women in 15–29 age group. It can be seen that the trends in participation rates reported by rural females in TUS for employment and related activities are almost showing a similar trend as FLFPR in PLFS. The participation rate decreases from 25.2% for non-literate to 12.9% for below primary, remains stable (around 16%) for those with education level primary, upper primary/middle, secondary, higher secondary and then increases to 22.6% with the education level graduation and above. However, the average time spent is around 5 hours in a day per participant across all the levels of education. In case of production of goods for own final use, the participation rate and the average time spent in a day per participant decreases with increase in the level of education. This seems logical as the women with less education levels tend to undertake work related to ‘Agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining for own final use’ in rural areas.
Participation Rate and Minutes Spent in a Day Spent on an Average per Participant Irrespective of Whether It Is a Major Activity or Not (Considering All the Activities in a Time Slot) for Different Level of Education.
Participation Rate and Minutes Spent in a Day Spent on an Average per Participant Irrespective of Whether It Is a Major Activity or Not (Considering All the Activities in a Time Slot) for Different Level of Education.
Rural women spent 3 hours on average in a day per participant less than the rural males in SNA production activities, urban women spent approximate three and half hours in a day per participant less than urban males.
While the non-SNA activities are predominantly undertaken by females with participation rates of 84.2% and 81.5% for rural and urban females as compared to 37.9% and 33.2% in rural and urban males. However, rural and urban females spent on an average approximately 4 hours more than rural and urban males on non-SNA production activities. Thus, women spent 4 hours on an average in a day per participant more on non-SNA activities which are outside the definition of economic activity used in Employment Unemployment Surveys. Thus, the shortfall in the average time spent per participant on SNA activities by females is devoted exclusively to attend the non-SNA (mostly domestic and caregiving services for household members) (Figure 5).
Percentage Share of Rural Female Workforce Industry-wise and by Broad Status of Employment.
A large chunk of the rural female workforce is still engaged in agriculture mostly as helper followed by casual labour. Even in secondary sector, the female rural workforce is mostly self-employed (own account worker, employer) and casual labour. Tertiary (Service sector) with lowest share of female rural workforce (13.6%) has 65% of them working as regular wage/salaried worker. Work as helper in household enterprise in agriculture provides the flexibility of work and home balance. But, in event of extreme events (drought/floods), it is this segment of rural women workforce who are affected and fall back to domestic and caregiving duties in absence of availability of suitable work opportunities (casual work etc.).
From the Time Use in India 2019 results, it is observed that the average time spent in a day per participant is 383 and 238 minutes for urban females in age group 15–59 who are part of the workforce vis-à-vis 492 minutes and 92 minutes for urban males who are part of the workforce in SNA production and non-SNA activities. Among the working men and women, urban women spend 113 minutes (approx. 2 hours) on an average less than the urban male in SNA activities; she spends approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes more on non-SNA activities. Annual Report Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018–June 2019) results indicate that 3.05% of urban workforce have reported to be engaged in NIC 9700. Thus, substitution of domestic and caregiving work may also be an issue in urban areas. The burden of non-SNA production activities on urban women in workforce is not much different than the rural female workers. In urban sector, women are mostly engaged in tertiary activities (63%) followed by secondary sector (29%). While those in tertiary activities are regular wage/salaried workers (74.7%), those engaged in secondary activities like mining, manufacturing, electricity, water supply, construction are mostly own account worker/employer (43.6%). Regular wage salaried activities in tertiary sector are more demanding with respect to time spent and hence, since the opportunities are in tertiary service sector of regular wage/salaried nature, it increases the burden of work (SNA+ non-SNA) on urban women compared to rural women. This may be the reason for lower female labour force participation among urban females.
Comparison of Time Use in Unpaid Domestic and Caregiving Activities and LFPR Across G20 Countries
It is interesting to see how the LFPR varies across countries when we take the proportion of time spent by females and males on unpaid domestic and caregiving activities for household members into consideration. Cross-country comparison of Time Use especially of the time spent by male and female household members on unpaid domestic and caregiving activities for household members is presented below for the G20 countries. The year of Time Use Surveys conducted in different countries varies and hence the LFPR for males and females have been taken to be from the year corresponding to the year of TUS survey for consistency.
Cross-country Comparison of Proportion of Time Spent by Men and Women on Unpaid Domestic and Caregiving Activities and Their Corresponding Labour Force Participation Rates.
TUS: UNSD (
LFPR: World Bank (
Indonesia and Saudi Arabia not considered due to non-availability of TUS data.
*Age group 15+ years except South Africa (10+).
$ MLFPR for year 2010.
BRICS
The correlation in the difference between the absolute proportion of time spent by males and females on domestic and caregiving activities and gap between the MLFPR and FLFPR is very high (0.85), indicating that an increase in the difference between the proportion of time spent by males and females on domestic and caregiving activities results increase in gap between MLFPR and FLFPR. A simple regression between the difference of absolute proportion of time spent by males and females on domestic and caregiving activities and gap between MLFPR and FLFPR indicates that 1% increase in the difference of proportion of time spent by males and females on domestic and caregiving activities on an average increases the gap between MLFPR and FLFPR on an average by 2.3%. Thus, redistribution of domestic and caregiving activities among men and women has a positive impact on the labour market outcomes of the women. Countries like Canada, the UK, USA, Germany and France wherein the gap between the proportion of time spent by males and females on unpaid domestic and caregiving activities is less, the FLFPR is higher than 50 (Table 10).
Quantifying the Economic Value of Unpaid Domestic Work
UNSD 9 observes that Time Use Statistics ‘offer a unique tool for exploring a wide range of policy concerns including assessing quality of life or general well-being, analyzing division of labour between women and men, improving estimates of all forms of work (paid and unpaid) and estimating household production and its contribution to GDP’. Ironmonger (1999) observes that ‘We need to know how unpaid labour fits in with the stock of household capital goods to produce goods and services for households’. So, it is also important to segregate those unpaid domestic and caregiving activities which form a part of the household economy and where it is possible to put a value on these non-market activities so as to measure the magnitude of these activities. Reid (1934, read from Ironmonger, 2001) says that ‘If an activity is of such character that it might be delegated to a paid worker, then that activity shall be deemed productive’. Thus, preparation of food, cleaning the house and outdoors, hand/machine-washing, drying textiles and clothing, instructing, teaching, training, helping children, minding the children, assisting dependent adults with tasks of daily living and medical care to name a few satisfy this definition of productive work. However, the affection/emotional support for dependent children and adults, budgeting, planning, organising duties and activities in the household, playing and sports with children, talking with and reading to children, accompanying own children, dependent & non-dependent adults during travel are some of the caregiving activities which as observed by Reid cannot be considered productive in the economic sense though these activities are important for overall emotional and psychological well-being.
Having said that, it is important to measure the size of household economy because woman contributes most of her time to these household activities. Landefeld et al. (2009) mention about the household production accounts, which have been constructed by Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Mexico, Nepal and the United Kingdom. The SNA 1993 10 mentions about satellite account which is based on an extended production boundary, including estimates for household production of services for own use. The Satellite Account for Unpaid Household Activity (including unpaid household services, consumer durables and volunteer labour) has been explained in SNA (2008). 11
As mentioned by Ironmonger (2001), ‘Time use surveys provide only one source of information about household production since they omit the contribution from non-human capital (the land, dwellings and equipment owned by households)’. The challenges to value the unpaid domestic and caregiving work has been beautifully covered by Hirway (2005) and important issues observed by the author are briefly mentioned below. The unpaid work can be valued using the input method (product of time spent by the person on an unpaid activity and wage) or output method (product of number of units of output from an activity and the wage rate). The difficulties in input method are determination of appropriate wage rate for the unpaid activity (choice between gender-wise specialist and generalist wage available in market for same or similar activity or use of opportunity cost approach (based on age, education etc.)). In case of output method, there are difficulties to get data on unit of output (number of meals cooked, clothes pressed etc.) and the appropriate corresponding wage rate (reference from Hirway (2005) and Ironmonger (2001)). As observed by these authors, the market factors (demand–supply) which determine wage rate and the suitability to apply those wage rates to household activities inherently have inconsistency issues (quality of output, the efficiency of work [quantity–quality–time required]), for example, washing and pressing of clothes by a laundry shop versus that done manually by household member versus that by a mix of machine wash and manual pressing. Moreover, the use of non-human goods like washing machines, electricity, other equipment used and their depreciation need to be accounted for which will require more detailed information to be included in the Time Use Survey. Ironmonger (2001) mentions about use of Input Output tables showing the uses of labour, capital, energy and materials in each of the main and ancillary industries of the household economy. Moreover, there is a need to maintain continuity in availability of Time Use Statistics so as to match the frequency of release calendar for GDP and the Satellite Account for Household Economy. Most of the countries conduct TUS with time lag varying between 5 and 10 years (except the USA where it is conducted annually 12 ).
Augmenting the Results of Employment Unemployment Surveys by Time Use Survey
Time Use Survey statistics generated can be very useful to augment the labour statistics generated by the Employment Unemployment Surveys. While the main purpose of the TUS is measurement of time allocation to all forms of work performed by the different household members in 24-hour period, it provides important indicators for gender equality and help to analyse to some extent what may be the reasons affecting labour market outcomes for men and women disaggregating at various levels (rural vs urban, age, education, number of dependents etc.). This acts as an empirical input for policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation especially for ensuring sustainable and inclusive labour market outcomes. TUS also helps to address the commitment to provide the necessary data for computation of SDG Target 5.4 (‘Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate’). Hirway (2020) observes that ‘As informal work is frequently intermittent and irregular, the TUS information on one day’s work(for less than one hour) or non-work cannot qualify the person to be worker or non-worker’. However, TUS aids in capturing a woman’s work in a much better manner as some forms of unpaid subsistence activities of the household and unpaid household work are not considered as economic activities as per definitions used in Labour Force Surveys. As observed by Hirway (2020), concurrently conducting the TUS and EUS using same sampling framework to generate better labour force statistics may also be explored in future.
Policy Interventions for Improving Labour Market Outcomes for Women
The decision of a woman to participate in labour market is complex because of social and economic aspects which are at play in varying proportions, thereby requiring a multi-dimensional approach to address or mitigate these aspects effectively. Availability of regular and comprehensive data covering major social and economic aspects which affect a woman’s decision to be a part of labour market or not, is of prime importance. The entire exercise of time use and improving the labour statistics is not only to increase the FLFPR but also to give more visibility and recognition to the socio-economic contribution of women to the society. It is also difficult to integrate the entire gamut of unpaid domestic and caregiving activities into the production boundary and arrive at improved estimates of GDP due to the complexity of assumptions and uncertainty in determining the best valuation method for household economy. Conducting regular Time Use Surveys focused on changing dynamics of male–female burden of work and sharing of family responsibilities of domestic and caregiving work (during pandemic times, normal times ) will give better insights.
It is hypothetical that the entire unpaid domestic and caregiving services can be outsourced. More opportunities of part-time self-employment/entrepreneurial activities which can be carried out flexibly along with domestic duties will help in improving participation in labour markets and bring better economic outcomes. While self-employment activities give autonomy of decision-making of what to produce and when to produce, they are suitable to women who also need to render domestic and caregiving services. It is also important to ensure market linkages for these products and services and improve the economic avenues to make them remunerative and cost effective. The export and import policies, taxation policies, procurement policies may be customised to favour the women-centric and women-led enterprises. However, it is also important to ensure that these positive interventions should not be just for tokenism and at the back end regulated and operated by male members. Equally helpful is upgradation of skill sets to ensure that work avenues are not restricted to few traditional industry sectors like medicine, education, agriculture, other personal services (beautician, tailoring), food processing to name a few. Opportunities in male-dominated economic activities by training and capacity building can help in removing the gender bias prevalent in the labour market and ensure diversity in the economic opportunity portfolio of women. Even the regular wage/salaried part-time opportunities which can be carried out from home (especially in tertiary sector) can be encouraged. The work-from-home (WFH) concept has gained currency since the outbreak of corona pandemic. WFH can help to address the work–home balance, travelling needs and other issues which in many instances force women to drop out from labour market. Upgrading the infrastructure and accessibility to enable such WFH opportunities (Internet connectivity, appliances required) and training and capacity building of women will have positive impact. This will help women entrepreneurs to connect to market and regular wage/salaried women to maintain work–life balance. Also, those economic activities which are carried out from workplace of the employer may provide flexibility in work timings and also provide part-time opportunities which are suitable to women, thereby ensuring equity, diversity and inclusiveness in the workforce. This flexibility should also be extended to men. The workplace policies of paid leaves for family and caregiving may be tweaked for breaking the stereotypes that women are the primary caregiver thereby nudging the male members to take part in domestic and caregiving activities. Also, friendly work policies for returning women after hiatus due to child birth and unavoidable breaks which force women to drop out needs to be encouraged. SDG 11 calls for sustainable cities and communities which are very important for ensuring better labour market outcomes. Remunerative wages, safe and conducive working environment at workplace, diversifying the gamut of economic activities in which women can participate and innovative interventions at organisation level framed after taking into consideration the double burden of work on women will surely help in encouraging women to be a part of productive workforce and also result in increasing the opportunity cost of not being a part of labour market participation. All these measures are steps towards economic empowerment and enhancing the decision-making ability of women for self and other household members which will also help to improve the financial, educational and health outcomes of the family through second round intergenerational effects among the family members thereby building human capital.
Having said that it is also important to develop a market for those domestic and caregiving services which satisfy the third person criterion (Reid, 1934 read from Ironmonger, 2001). This will go a long way in changing, rather altering the scenario of unpaid activities in which women are primarily involved thereby addressing to some extent the double burden of work experienced by women. There is a need to formalise the market for these services so that the inferior outcomes due to inherent informal nature of these services and activities can be systematically overcome. Provision of better fuel and lighting source, availability of advanced home appliances, better water supply mechanism and better connectivity infrastructure are some of the highly effective initiatives to mitigate the drudgery of unpaid domestic and caregiving services. Another way to create a market for these unpaid services is through voluntary work for households and community- and organisation-based volunteering (Swiebel, DESA Discussion Paper No. 4, 1999). If provided with social security, welfare benefits and basic minimum stipend for such volunteering work, there is scope for increasing participation in voluntary activities especially caregiving, thereby reducing the burden women in the household. Also, it is important to instil gender equality among children to reinforce the ideals of domestic and caregiving work-sharing among children and overcoming stereotypes at household level.
Conclusions
In this article, we have tried to analyse the female labour force participation in India making use of the Time Use Survey conducted in 2019. It is the first nation-wide TUS conducted in India and provides valuable insights into the labour market outcomes for females. While it is not unknown that the burden of unpaid work is disproportionately tilted towards the woman(en) in the household, the actual quantification of the double burden has been possible by the TUS data. Combining the paid and unpaid activities, women are experiencing the double burden of domestic duties and this divide is almost same (proportion of time spent) in rural and urban sector for women. Those women in workforce feel the burden of unpaid domestic work more than those out of the labour force and involved only in unpaid domestic and caregiving services. The unpaid domestic and caregiving services with high participation rates are such that they may be substituted with hired worker provided that there are economic incentives to do so. If the labour market conditions are favourable and the opportunity costs of not participating in economic activities are high in terms of high wages, conducive environment for work and division of work through cooperation at home (fair gender-division of work), more and more women can become part of productive labour force.
The participation rates in unpaid domestic and caregiving activities and the average time spent per participant in a day indicate that the gender-division of labour in the households does not change much with change in the level of income of the household. Also, the increase in participation rate and average time disposition in economic and related activities does not change the gender-division of work (men still contribute less to the domestic unpaid services compared to women, and contribution to overall income of household by women does not lead to substitution of these domestic unpaid services). From the education level wise analysis of time disposition, it may be inferred that rural and urban women with increasing levels of general education tend to undertake unpaid domestic and caregiving activities which may be taking into consideration the opportunity costs involved between home, work and leisure. Household surveys to ascertain the complex trade-off between a woman’s choices to participate in economic activities are needed to arrive at concrete reasons to know about the lower participation rates among urban women in economic activities.
The burden of non-SNA activities forces the women to spend less time in economic activities which contribute to the GDP. Cross-country comparison of G20 countries clearly reflects that the distribution of domestic and caregiving activities among men and women has a positive impact on the labour market outcomes of the women. There are challenges of measuring the ‘unremunerated unpaid work’ undertaken in households in economic value terms but Time Use Surveys can be starting point of arriving at the value addition in the household economy by females whose work is mostly informal and lack visibility and recognition. Thus, insights gained from Time Use Statistics and how it augments the EUS labour statistics help us to understand the need for periodic Time Use Surveys for informed policy intervention in ensuring more gender equitable, sustainable and inclusive growth.
