Still staring at jobless growth

As the country enters the New Year, what will most of its youth, that sizeable section of the population predestined by the policymaker with the label of “demographic dividend”, be thinking — if they think at all?

Those in the urban with secure jobs areas will hardly need to contemplate anything more profound than an exploration of the air-conditioned malls’ tactile pleasures — the wondrous leeching of modernisation’s gifts. But those without secure employment will wonder what 2013 will bring for them.

Perhaps, they should read the Planning Commission report on employment in the 12th Plan (Report of the Working Group on Employment, Planning and Policy for the Twelfth Plan) to draw sustenance from its focus on “inclusiveness”.

The 12th Plan that began this year will make employment a centrepiece of the planning process. Or, as the Working Group intones, labour and employment “is likely to play a crucial role in the planning process.” All the vast numbers grouped into that blessed ‘demographic dividend” can now take heart.

The Working Group report was issued last December as a curtain raiser for the 12th Plan’s focus. One year later, a revisit of its observations on and prescriptions for labour and employment over the next four years of the 12th Plan seems in order. Not so much to fault the government for letting a year go by, but more to locate its innate strengths and weaknesses as a document of change.

Blame the economy

That the economy, over the past 12 months has given no indication of providing the platform for the kind of employment opportunities the Commission envisages, is unfortunate. Increasing employment opportunities demands robust growth and so far we have had no evidence of that; policymakers with stars in their eyes talk of a turnaround next year but then they know no better because they have stars in their eyes or, to put it more prosaically, ‘green shoots’ in their gaze.

No one with clear vision can say anything about 2014 either; Europe is due for a huge financial overhaul, perhaps the US recovery might gain strength. But India has its general elections and judging by the current play of power, it may have one messy outcome and that isn’t good for investors betting on India’s “growth story”.

Growth yes, jobs no

Not that growth itself, measured by the inflow of capital and surge in investments, has had any major impact on employment. The five-year period since 2004-05, considered the golden age of India Shining, recorded poor employment growth. In fact, the report casts doubts on the idea of trickle-down benefits, when it suggests that even in periods of high growth employment, benefits were not forthcoming. That is one reason for planners to treat employment not as a derivative of growth, but as a goal to be pursued separately.

This is how the report explains it: “A notable rising trend has been observed in unemployment among educated youth. Another area of major concern has been the quality of employment and level of productivity. These developments are indicative of the fact that growth alone cannot generate sustainable and quality employment opportunities.”

This is of course a loaded criticism, for it undermines the basic philosophy policymakers have followed so assiduously since the late 1980s — that growth will change us all.

Having said its piece, the Planning Commission cannot throw up its hands and abandon planning. By de-linking employment from economic expansion, it assigns itself the task of venturing into the field abandoned by market-led growth.

Not looking ahead

In the data it provides, overall employment, measured by the work force participation rates (WPR) fell between 2004-05 and 2009-10. But the number of daily wage earners measured by Current Daily Status increased. “The work force expansion was also maximum under CDS. It increased from 382.8 million person-days on a day in 2004-05 to 400.8 million persons-days on a day i.e. by 18 million person-days.” Therefore, the casualisation of labour and the divide between the organised and unorganised sectors of the economy, a key theme of the Arjun Sengupta committee report on the informal sector, has not been bridged in the high growth years.

The report on employment in the 12th Plan makes for fascinating reading, though not in the way the authors would have intended it to be read. The report makes it clear that growth led-employment has not led to the desired job creation, particularly among “educated youth.”

But when it gets down to looking into the future, it falls back on the same shop-worn cliches that basically tell us how far behind the curve of reality planners are. It could be argued that the PC plays the tune set by the government of the day.

That may explain the following nostrum: “employment generation should be focused on different segments of labour force — organised, unorganised, rural, urban, educated, uneducated, skilled, unskilled, male, female and youth and that employment will be source of livelihood for all. Nevertheless, priority needs to be accorded to the disadvantaged sections of society such as SC/ST/OBC/minorities/women and differently abled. This could be better ensured through generation of sustainable and good quality employment… The Working Group also underlined the significance of adoption of labour-intensive technology… the Working Group suggested policy initiatives required to stimulate decent jobs during the 12th Plan period.”

In the above one senses a self-parody, a caricaturising of an old sermon bereft of meaning, that with repeated utterance becomes a mockery of itself at best and at worst, the reduction of discourse into dissimulation.

COMMENT NOW